A call for caution before knocking the court’s door

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has long stood as one of the most transformative innovations in India’s constitutional jurisprudence. Conceived as a mechanism to democratise access to justice, it opened the doors of constitutional courts to those who lacked the means, awareness or standing to seek legal remedies. From bonded labourers and undertrial prisoners to environmental protection and governance reforms, PILs have played a defining role in shaping India’s rights-based jurisprudence.

Yet, as the proverb goes, “too much of a good thing can turn harmful,” and the very openness that made PIL a powerful instrument has, over time, rendered it vulnerable to misuse.

A recent observation of the Supreme Court brings this concern into sharp focus. While dismissing a petition seeking directions to prevent deaths allegedly caused by “civic negligence,” the Court issued a strong and timely caution to young lawyers against filing PILs for visibility or publicity. The Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi described the petition as “vague, evasive and with wide averments,” seeking directions that were “unmanageable” in nature. The dismissal of the petition may not have been surprising; however, the underlying message from the Court carries far greater significance for the legal fraternity. And there are many such instances of recent past, where PILs were found lacking substance, proper research & drafting and public interest.

A message the bar must heed

During the course of the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that “civic negligence”, including unsafe infrastructure such as open pits on roads, had assumed a national dimension. While the issue itself was undeniably serious, the Court questioned the manner in which it had been brought before it. Why had specific complaints not been pursued against the concerned authorities in individual cases? Why was the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court invoked without first exhausting ordinary remedies?

These questions go to the very heart of PIL jurisprudence. A PIL is not meant to be a substitute for routine litigation, nor is it intended to bypass established statutory mechanisms. It is an extraordinary remedy, to be invoked with care, responsibility and restraint.

When the counsel informed the Court that she had been in practice for four years, the Bench offered advice that resonates far beyond the confines of the courtroom. Young lawyers, it observed, must focus on learning the craft under experienced seniors rather than rushing to file PILs for recognition. In a particularly candid remark, the Court cautioned against the pursuit of “coming in national media” and warned that filing baseless petitions for social or media visibility undermines both professional growth and the sanctity of judicial processes. This observation is not merely advisory, it is cautionary.

The rise of ‘Publicity Interest Litigation’

The misuse of PIL has, in recent years, led to the emergence of a new phrase in legal discourse, “Publicity Interest Litigation.” These are petitions often characterised by sweeping allegations, insufficient research, lack of factual grounding and prayers that are impractical, if not impossible, to enforce.

In an era driven by instant visibility and social media amplification, the incentive structure has subtly shifted. A PIL filed before a constitutional court can quickly attract public attention, turning relatively unknown practitioners into recognisable faces overnight. However, such visibility is often transient, while the institutional cost is significant.

As another proverb reminds us, “empty vessels make the most noise.” In the context of PILs, noise without substance not only wastes valuable judicial time but also erodes the credibility of a mechanism that was designed to serve the most vulnerable sections of society.

The Supreme Court’s characterisation of such petitions as “vague” and “unmanageable” underscores a deeper concern. PILs are not meant to be broad, undefined grievances; they must be precise, well-researched and capable of resulting in enforceable directions.

The discipline behind meaningful litigation

From experience, the filing of a PIL is not an act of impulse but one of rigorous discipline. It begins with identifying a specific and demonstrable legal wrong that affects a class of persons unable to approach the Court. This must be supported by credible material like documents, data, or verifiable instances, but not the newspaper or unauthentic reports, that establish both the existence and the gravity of the issue.

Equally important is the question of alternative remedies. One must carefully examine whether statutory or administrative mechanisms have been invoked and, if so, why they have failed. A PIL should not be the first recourse; it should be the last, invoked when all other avenues have proved ineffective.

Further, the relief sought must be practical and enforceable. Courts are not equipped to implement vague, sweeping directions that lack specificity. A well-drafted PIL anticipates this and frames reliefs that are both legally sound and administratively workable. In essence, a PIL is not drafted for display, it is prepared for impact.

Learning before leading

The Court’s emphasis on professional grounding highlights an essential truth about the legal profession. Law is not a field where credibility can be fast-tracked. It is built through years of disciplined practice, careful observation and continuous learning.

Drafting, research and courtroom advocacy are skills that require mentorship and experience. By advising young lawyers to work under seniors and understand the nuances of practice, the Court has reinforced the importance of apprenticeship in law.

In a competitive environment, the temptation to equate visibility with success is understandable. However, as the saying goes, “Rome was not built in a day”, lasting credibility is not achieved through momentary recognition but through consistent and meaningful contribution.

Balancing access with accountability

It is equally important to recognise that the Court’s caution is not a discouragement of PILs. On the contrary, it is an effort to preserve their integrity. India’s legal history is replete with instances where PILs have led to transformative change, whether in environmental protection, human rights or governance reforms.

The challenge lies in maintaining a delicate balance i.e. ensuring that the doors of justice remain open to genuine public causes, while preventing their misuse for personal or professional gain.

This balance cannot be achieved by the judiciary alone. It requires a collective commitment from the Bar. Lawyers must exercise self-restraint and recognise that the extraordinary jurisdiction of constitutional courts must be invoked sparingly and responsibly.

The public dimension

For the general public, this issue is far from an internal matter of the legal fraternity. PIL remains a critical instrument through which citizens can seek accountability in matters affecting society at large including but not limited to unsafe infrastructure, environmental degradation, violations of fundamental rights etc. If PILs are increasingly misused, there is a real risk that courts may become more cautious or restrictive in entertaining them. This, in turn, could make it more difficult for genuine cases to receive timely attention. 

The Supreme Court’s warning, therefore, is not restrictive, it is protective. It seeks to ensure that this vital mechanism is not diluted by frivolous or publicity-driven litigation.

Restoring the soul of PIL

Public Interest Litigation is not merely a procedural innovation; it is a constitutional commitment to justice. Its strength lies in its credibility, and that credibility depends entirely on how it is used.

For young lawyers, the message is both simple and profound: master the craft before seeking the spotlight, and build substance before chasing visibility. 

The courtroom is not a stage for instant recognition; it is a forum for reasoned advocacy and responsible lawyering. If used with integrity, PIL will continue to remain a powerful tool for social transformation. If misused, it risks becoming a caricature of its original purpose. The choice, ultimately, lies not with the courts alone, but with the Bar.

END OF ARTICLE