Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation in India

Abstract

Over the years the Indian judiciary has always been hailed as an activist judiciary. The phenomenon that bears testimony to this label is the spate of judicial decisions dealing with Public Interest Litigations. Ever since the conclusion of the first ever PIL concerning the Ratlam Municipal Council in 1976, PIL has become an effective remedy for all those who are advocates of social justice and believe in working for the general benefit of the masses including those deprived of their basic needs falling into the category of the underprivileged.

The major breakthrough came in 1982 when the Supreme Court delivered the S.P. Gupta vs Union of India judgment and said that any individual approaching the court should have a proper locus standi, i.e., a legal basis to seek a judicial remedy from the court. In a way, the aim of introducing the locus standi theory was to regulate the number of PILs being filed in the courts and made the common man aware that a judicial remedy could not be sought for just about anything and everything.

This paper traces the origin and development of PIL in India and seeks to analyze how PIL came to India as a result of judicial activism of some judges and their initiative to deliver social justice in an effective manner. However, the difficulties of this form of litigation is also discussed, thereby emphasizing on the difficulties in striking the right balance between judicial overreach and judicial restraint. Suggestions are given at the end as to how the Indian judiciary can guard against over-activism in the urge to provide effective justice.

Keywords: Judicial Actvism, Public Interest Litigation, Judges Transfer Case, Locus Standi