From Locus Standi to PIL: Understand in 10 points, How Indian Judiciary Changed Access to Justice

Locus Standi to PIL: Introduction

For many years, Indian courts followed a strict rule. Only the person affected by a problem could go to court. This rule was called locus standi. It means the right to appear before the court.

If something wrong happened in society, but it didn’t affect you directly, you had no right to file a case. This left many poor and helpless people without any support. Prisoners, slum dwellers, and bonded labourers had no way to ask for justice.

This was unfair. Justice should be for everyone, not just for the rich or educated. That’s when a new idea came up. It was called Public Interest Litigation, or PIL.

You may like this: Judicial Creativity Explained: Tools, Techniques, and Global Case Studies

PIL allowed anyone to file a case for the good of the public. You didn’t need to be affected yourself. If you saw injustice, you could write to the court. Journalists, lawyers, and social workers started using PIL to help others.

This marked the changing approach of Indian judiciary from locus standi to PIL. It was a big step. Courts started caring about human rights and public welfare. They began helping people who could not help themselves.

This blog will explain how that change happened. We’ll look at old cases, new ideas, and real examples. We’ll also ask: Has this change helped India? Or is the system being misused?

Let’s begin this journey—from a narrow path to a wider road that leads to justice for all.

Locus Standi – The Traditional Rule

Before PILs became common, courts in India followed a narrow rule. This rule was called locus standi. It meant only the person who was directly harmed could go to court.

If someone else was suffering, you could not speak for them. Even if you had proof, the court would not hear your case. This made justice hard to reach for many poor or voiceless people.

For example, in the early years after independence, many people lived in slums. Some were beaten in custody. Others were forced into bonded labour. But they could not file cases. They had no money, no lawyers, and no idea how the legal system worked.

If a journalist or NGO tried to help them, the court would reject the case. It would say, “You are not the affected person.” That’s how the rule of locus standi worked.

You may like this : How Law Transforms Society: India & Global Impact

The rule was meant to stop false cases. But in reality, it kept real people from getting help. Justice became a luxury. Only those with power or knowledge could reach the court.

This system started to feel outdated. The public began to ask: Why can’t someone speak for the poor? Why can’t a lawyer help prisoners or street children?

These questions opened the door to a major shift. The changing approach of Indian judiciary from locus standi to PIL began in the late 1970s. Judges started to think differently. They wanted to make justice more open and human.

In the next section, we’ll see what caused this change. How did India move from old rules to new thinking? What made the courts allow PILs for the first time?

The Turning Point – What Triggered the Shift

By the late 1970s, things started to change. India had gone through the Emergency. Many rights were taken away during that time. People saw how hard it was to fight for justice. This made judges think more deeply about their role in society.

Some judges believed the law should help the poor. They wanted courts to listen to the weak, not just the rich. Two judges led this change. Their names were Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer. They believed the courts must work for social justice.

A new idea was born—Public Interest Litigation, or PIL. This allowed anyone to approach the court. You didn’t have to be the victim. If you cared about an issue that affected people, you could write to the judge. Even a letter could become a legal case.

In one case, prisoners in Bihar were kept in jail for years without trial. A lawyer wrote a letter to the Supreme Court. The court treated it like a petition. It was called Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar. This case became the first major PIL.

This marked the changing approach of Indian judiciary from locus standi to PIL. Judges now saw themselves as protectors of the poor. They opened the doors of the courtroom to all.

More such cases followed. Street children, bonded labourers, women, and environmental issues all came before the court—thanks to PILs.

You may like this: In 8 points Know why Intellectual Property Rights Matter in the Indian Economy

The law was no longer cold or distant. It became alive and people-centered. The next section will explore the important cases that shaped this journey. These cases show how PIL changed the face of Indian justice.

Landmark Cases That Changed It All

After the courts accepted the idea of PIL, many important cases followed. These cases showed how the courts were now working for the people. They helped bring justice to those who could never reach the court on their own.

One of the first big cases was Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979). This case was about undertrial prisoners. Some of them were in jail for years without any trial. A lawyer wrote a letter to the Supreme Court. The court accepted it as a PIL. It ordered the release of thousands of poor prisoners.

Next came S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981). This was the first case where the court clearly said that any public spirited person can file a PIL. The court ruled that justice should not be blocked by technical rules. This case truly opened the door wide.

In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the court protected the rights of slum dwellers. It said that the right to life also includes the right to livelihood. The people were not evicted overnight. The court said the government must act humanely.

Then came Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997). It was a case about workplace harassment. A social group filed the petition after a brutal gang rape. The court created new guidelines to protect women at work. These are still followed today.

These cases show the changing approach of Indian judiciary from locus standi to PIL in action. Courts began to care more about the weak, the poor, and the unheard. The law became a tool for justice—not just a system of rules.

In the next section, we’ll look at real data. How many PILs are filed today? What types of issues are brought to court? And is the system still working as it should?

You may like this : How to Register a GI in India in 8 steps: Step-by-Step Guide

Data-Driven Analysis – PIL Explosion in Numbers

Public Interest Litigation started small. In the beginning, only a few PILs were filed. But once the courts allowed it, the number of PILs grew very fast.

Between 1985 and 2019, the Supreme Court of India received over 9.2 lakh (923,277) PILs. On average, that’s around 26,000 PILs every year. In 1985, there were about 24,000. By 2019, that number had reached nearly 71,000 PILs a year. This shows just how quickly the system grew.

Most of these were letter petitions. This means the court accepted simple letters as PILs. These letters were often written by activists, lawyers, or common citizens. In fact, about 99% of PILs filed in the Supreme Court today are letters, not full legal petitions.

But not all of these cases go very far. Only a small number—around 260 PILs a year—are actually taken up and fully heard by the Supreme Court. This shows that while many people use the PIL route, only a few cases pass the court’s filter.

In the High Courts, the story is the same. Between 2019 and 2021, around 7,800 PILs were filed across India on matters related to fundamental rights.

This data proves how the changing approach of Indian judiciary from locus standi to PIL made the courts more open to the public. Today, anyone with a concern for justice can write to the court.

In the next section, we will look at both sides of the story. Has PIL helped India become more fair? Or is it being used in the wrong way?

PIL – Boon or Bane?

Public Interest Litigation has helped millions. But it has also raised concerns. Some call it a miracle. Others call it a misuse of the courts. So, is PIL a blessing or a problem? Let’s look at both sides.

How PIL Helped India

PIL gave a voice to the voiceless. Poor people, prisoners, women, children, and even nature got protection through PILs. Many important rights came from PILs. Clean air, fast trials, food for the hungry, and women’s safety were all brought to court this way.

The courts acted fast in many PILs. When children were being trafficked, when rivers were polluted, or when women were unsafe at work, the courts stepped in. This would not have been possible under the old locus standi rule.

The changing approach of Indian judiciary from locus standi to PIL made the courts more open, kind, and helpful. Justice was no longer just for the rich. It was for everyone.

Where PIL Went Wrong

But not all PILs are good. Some are fake. Some are filed just to get fame or media attention. In some cases, people use PILs to stop government projects for personal reasons. This wastes the court’s time.

Even judges have warned about this. The Supreme Court said that “PILs should not become Publicity Interest Litigations.” The court has also started asking for proof before accepting a PIL.

Sometimes, the courts go too far. They make rules instead of just interpreting the law. This can upset the balance between the courts, government, and lawmakers.

Comparative View – India and the World

India is not the only country where people fight for public rights in court. But India’s model of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is very special. Let’s see how it compares to other countries.

United States

In the US, courts follow strict rules. You must show that you are directly harmed. This is similar to India’s old locus standi rule. The US allows a few exceptions. For example, if your rights as a taxpayer or voter are being hurt, you may be allowed to go to court. But overall, the US courts don’t allow cases just in the public interest.

United Kingdom

The UK was also strict in the past. But things changed after the Human Rights Act, 1998. Now, people can file cases if their rights under that law are affected. Still, the UK is not as open as India. British courts do not accept letters or emails as petitions.

Pakistan

Pakistan has a system similar to India. Its courts also relaxed the rules for locus standi. Activists and journalists there can file PILs. Many of their PILs are inspired by Indian cases. The courts in Pakistan also accept newspaper reports or letters as legal action

India Leads the Way

India took the boldest step. The changing approach of Indian judiciary from locus standi to PIL made India a leader in public interest law. No other country allows this much access to justice through courts.

But this also brings more responsibility. Courts must make sure that the system is not misused.

Implementation Gap – When Orders Fail

PILs have changed lives. Courts have given many powerful judgments. But the real question is are these orders followed? Sadly, not always.

In many cases, the court gives strong directions. But the government does not act on them. Sometimes the orders are ignored. Sometimes they are delayed. This creates what experts call an implementation gap.

Real Examples

Take the case of the Ganga river cleanup. The court passed several orders over the years. But even today, the river remains polluted. The action on the ground was slow and weak.

In another case, the court gave orders to stop bonded labour. It asked states to identify and free such workers. But many states didn’t respond. Years later, the problem still exists.

Even in the Vishaka case, which created workplace rules for women’s safety, it took 16 years for Parliament to pass a law. Many offices still don’t follow the court’s guidelines.

Why Does This Happen?

The courts can give orders. But they cannot force the government to follow them. There are no strong systems to check if the directions are working. This weakens the effect of PILs.

This is a major concern in the changing approach of Indian judiciary from locus standi to PIL. If the court listens but the state does nothing, then the people lose hope.

In the next section, we will discuss how this system can be improved. How can we keep the good parts of PIL while fixing what’s broken?

The Way Forward – Reforming the PIL System

Public Interest Litigation has helped many people. But as we’ve seen, it also has problems. To keep it useful, we need to improve the system. The courts, government, and public all have a role to play.

What Needs to Change?

First, we need to stop fake or publicity-driven PILs. Some people file PILs just to be in the news or to block projects. These waste time and slow down real justice. Courts should check if a PIL is genuine before hearing it.

The Supreme Court has already given some rules. In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010), the court said there must be rules to filter PILs. It asked for better scrutiny and penalties for false cases. But many High Courts still don’t follow these rules fully.

Second, we need better follow up systems. Courts should not only give orders—they should also check if the orders are working. A special cell in each court could track PIL outcomes.

Third, courts should work with experts and civil society. Sometimes judges don’t have full knowledge of social issues. Experts can help them make better, practical decisions.

Lastly, we need more public legal education. Many people still don’t know that PIL exists. They don’t know how to file one. If more people learn, the tool of PIL can become stronger and cleaner.

The changing approach of the Indian judiciary from locus standi to PIL has been powerful. But for PIL to stay strong, we must protect it from misuse and make sure it creates real change on the ground.

Conclusion: A Tool of Justice, If Used Wisely

The journey from locus standi to Public Interest Litigation is one of the biggest changes in Indian legal history. It turned the courts from closed spaces into places of hope. Earlier, only those directly harmed could ask for justice. Now, anyone can speak for those who cannot.

This shift—the changing approach of Indian judiciary from locus standi to PIL—gave voice to the poor, the weak, and the ignored. It helped fight for clean air, fair trials, women’s rights, and more. In many cases, it brought real change.

But like every powerful tool, PIL must be used with care. Fake cases, delay in action, and lack of follow-up weaken its value. Courts must stay alert. Governments must do their part. And people must use this tool for the right reasons.

PIL was not just a legal change. It was a moral one. It said that justice should be for all—not just for a few. It asked the courts to listen, even to a letter from a jail or a slum.

If used wisely, PIL will remain a light for those in the dark. But if it’s misused, it will lose its power.

Let us protect this tool. Let us improve it. And let us remember that justice is not just a rule—it is a right, for every citizen.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is locus standi in Indian law?
Locus standi refers to the legal right of a person to approach the court. Traditionally, only the person directly affected by an issue could file a case.

Q2: What is Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?
PIL allows any public-spirited person to file a case on behalf of those who cannot do it themselves. It’s used to address broader public concerns like environmental issues, human rights, and social justice.

Q3: How did the Indian judiciary shift from locus standi to PIL?
This shift happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s, mainly through judgments by progressive judges like Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer. The courts started accepting letters and petitions from concerned citizens to protect public interest.

Q4: Can anyone file a PIL in India?
Yes, any individual or organization can file a PIL, as long as it is for the public good and not for personal or political gain.

Q5: Is there any risk of misuse of PILs?
Yes, there is growing concern about frivolous or publicity-seeking PILs. Courts now examine petitions more carefully and have issued guidelines to prevent misuse.

Q6: What are some famous PIL cases in India?
Notable examples include Hussainara Khatoon (undertrial prisoners), Vishaka case (sexual harassment guidelines), and Olga Tellis (slum dwellers’ rights).

Q7: How does PIL in India compare to other countries?
India’s PIL system is one of the most liberal. In countries like the US and UK, courts require proof of direct harm. Pakistan has a similar PIL system to India.

Q8: Are court orders in PILs always followed?
Not always. There is often an implementation gap where government agencies fail to act on court directions. Better enforcement and follow-up mechanisms are needed.

PIL changed Indian law forever. It made justice reachable for the poor and powerless. But misuse is a risk.

We must protect this tool. Courts, governments, and citizens all have a duty. If used wisely, PIL will remain a light for those in the dark.

Let us protect this tool. Let us improve it. And let us remember that justice is not just a rule—it is a right, for every citizen.

Bibliography / References

1. Bhagwati, P.N. Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation. Supreme Court of India, 1986.
2. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369.
3. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
4. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.
5. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011.
6. State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402.
7. Baxi, Upendra. Taking Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Court of India. International Commission of Jurists, 1985.
8. Sathe, S.P. Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits. Oxford University Press, 2002.
9. Supreme Court of India. Annual Reports and Statistics. scobserver.in, 2019.
10. Indian Kanoon. Public Interest Litigation Case Summaries and Judgments.
11. Choudhry, Sujit. “Public Interest Litigation and Democratic Constitutionalism in India.” South Asia Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, 2006, pp. 45–72.

Note: This case can be referred to get the answer to the question “Discuss the changing approach of Indian Judiciary from Locus Standii to PIL”

Download:- From Locus Standi to PIL: How Indian Judiciary Changed Access to Justice pdf