Public Interest Litigation in India: Judicial Activism or Judicial Overreach?
Abstract
"Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons any member of the public acting bona fide can move the Court for judicial redress”1. Public Interest Litigation is a change in the way courts work. Public Interest Action made it easier for people to access justice by allowing more people to take cases to court and giving courts the power to protect the rights of marginalised people. The Supreme Court decisions helped create a system where people can participate in how the Constitution is used. Over time, PIL has changed from helping people get their rights to a way for courts to govern. Courts are now involved in making policy, supervising administration and managing regulations. This has raised a question about the constitution. Is Public Interest Action a good way to make the constitution work more, or does it hang republic by taking power away from other branches of the government? This article says that Public Interest Litigation needs to be understood as part of India's way of using the constitution to make changes. Public Interest Litigation is necessary in a society that's very unequal. However, for Public Interest Litigation to remain legitimate, courts need to be careful not to overstep their bounds they need to be clear about what they're doing, and they need to have rules in place to make sure everything runs smoothly. By looking at what courts have decided, and considering theory, this study says that Public Interest Litigation is still necessary, but needs to be adjusted so that democracy can work properly. Public Interest Litigation needs to be changed so that it does not disrupt the balance of power in the government.
Key words: Equality, Judicial Activism, Judicial Overreach, Transformative Constitutionalism, Access to Justice, Constitutional Governance
