Abstract

The Supreme Court of India plays a vital role in maintaining democracy and justice through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which enables individuals to request judicial action in matters of public concern. This mechanism has expanded access to justice and held the government and powerful entities accountable for systemic injustices. PIL originated in the late 1970s, influenced by global judicial activism, with significant cases like Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar bringing attention to the issues faced by undertrial prisoners. Influential figures such as Justice P N Bhagwati have contributed to the development of PIL jurisprudence by highlighting the courts’ responsibility to protect fundamental rights. The court’s proactive stance has tackled social injustices, environmental issues, consumer rights, and the needs of marginalized groups. The growth of PIL has empowered citizens and led to policy changes, including the Right to Information Act, 2005, and social welfare initiatives like the Mid-Day Meal Scheme. However, there are criticisms regarding judicial overreach, potential misuse of PIL, and the need to balance legislative and judicial functions, which calls for improved case screening and management. The future of PIL hinges on addressing these issues, enhancing transparency, and fostering communication between the judiciary, legislature, and civil society. In response, the court has set guidelines for filing PILs to filter out frivolous cases and protect its integrity. As the Supreme Court confronts contemporary challenges such as climate change, technological progress, digital privacy, and LGBTQ rights, it must adapt while adhering to constitutional limits. PIL has profoundly influenced Indian society by advocating for the public interest and promoting a fairer society. The Supreme Court’s dedication to justice and equity through PIL has made a significant impact, but ongoing efforts are necessary to ensure its effectiveness amid evolving challenges. The future of PIL relies on vigilance against misuse, heightened legal awareness, and the court’s capacity to respond to changing societal dynamics.

Keywords