Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has evolved into a potent instrument for the advancement of social justice and the protection of fundamental rights in India. It transcends traditional legal principles, enabling the judiciary to address issues affecting the marginalized sections of society. This article delves into the concept of PIL, its evolution through judicial precedents, and its significance in modern Indian jurisprudence. By examining landmark cases, the article provides a comprehensive understanding of the pros and cons of PIL, and its role in ensuring access to justice for all.

Introduction
Public Interest Litigation, often abbreviated as PIL, represents a paradigm shift in the conventional adversarial system of jurisprudence in India. Traditionally, litigation in Indian courts adhered to the locus standi principle, wherein only those directly affected by a legal issue could seek redressal. However, PIL has broadened this scope, permitting any public-spirited individual or organization to file petitions on behalf of those who are either unaware of their rights or unable to approach the courts due to socio-economic constraints.

The genesis of PIL in India can be traced back to the 1970s when the Supreme Court, under the stewardship of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati, embraced the idea of judicial activism. Through a series of landmark rulings, the judiciary recognized its role not merely as an adjudicator but as a sentinel on the qui vive for the protection of the fundamental rights of the downtrodden and underprivileged.

Judicial Precedents
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai (1976 AIR 1455, 1976 SCR (3) 591)
This case is one of the earliest instances where the Supreme Court emphasized the need for a more liberal interpretation of locus standi. The court held that procedural technicalities should not hinder justice, especially in matters involving the rights of workers and other disadvantaged groups.

Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v. Home Secretary, Bihar (1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532)
This landmark case highlighted the abysmal conditions in which undertrial prisoners were languishing in jails, some for periods longer than the maximum sentence for their alleged offenses. The court, treating a letter from a journalist as a writ petition, laid the foundation for the use of PIL as a tool for prison reforms.

Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India (1981 AIR 344)
In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that PIL is not meant for personal or political gain but should serve the public interest. The court's decision underscored the importance of PIL in safeguarding public assets and resources from mismanagement.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67)
This case is a quintessential example of PIL being used to address the issue of bonded labor. The court took cognizance of a letter from a social activist as a writ petition and issued directives for the release and rehabilitation of bonded laborers, thus recognizing PIL as a tool for social justice.

S.P. Gupta v. Union of India & Anr (1982 AIR 149, 1982 SCR (3) 365)
Also known as the Judges' Transfer Case, this landmark judgment expanded the concept of locus standi, allowing any member of the public to file a PIL in cases where the interests of the public at large are at stake. The case also marked a significant development in judicial transparency and accountability.

Olga Tellis & Ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors (1985 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51)
Popularly known as the "Pavement Dwellers Case," the Supreme Court in this instance recognized the right to livelihood as an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This case demonstrated how PIL could be used to protect the rights of the urban poor against arbitrary state action.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors (1987 SCR (1) 819)
M.C. Mehta, a public-spirited environmental lawyer, filed numerous PILs, including this seminal case concerning the pollution of the Ganga river. The court's intervention in this matter led to significant environmental regulations and underscored the role of PIL in environmental jurisprudence.

Vishaka & Ors v. State of Rajasthan & Ors (1997 (6) SCC 241)
In this groundbreaking judgment, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace. This case, filed as a PIL, exemplifies how PIL can be used to fill legislative gaps and protect the rights of vulnerable groups.

Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors (1993 (1) SCC 645)
The right to education was interpreted as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution in this case. The court, through a PIL, directed the state to ensure free and compulsory education for children up to the age of 14, thus laying the groundwork for the Right to Education Act, 2009.
 

Pros and Cons of PIL