Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciary?

• In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court liberalised locus standi, laying the foundation of Indian PIL.

Reasons for the Growth of PIL

• Post-Emergency judicial activism — judiciary sought to restore credibility after ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
• Relaxation of locus standi — any public-spirited citizen or organisation could litigate on behalf of the disadvantaged
• Epistolary jurisdiction — informal letters/postcards treated as writ petitions (Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1980)
• Wide remedial powers under Arts. 32 and 226 used innovatively to fashion new remedies
• Poor access to justice for the marginalised — Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI (1984) on bonded labour, Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) on undertrials' right to speedy trial
• Judicial innovation of "continuing mandamus" — courts retained seisin to monitor implementation (e.g., Vishaka guidelines, 1997)
• Weak legislative/executive response to pressing social and environmental issues pushed courts to fill governance gaps
• Rise of committed judicial activism under Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer in the late 1970s-80s

Landmark PIL Judgments Shaping Jurisprudence

• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) — recognised right to livelihood as part of Art. 21
• M.C. Mehta line of cases — foundation of India's environmental jurisprudence (Ganga pollution case, Taj Trapezium case, Oleum Gas Leak case introducing "absolute liability")
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) — judicially framed guidelines against workplace sexual harassment in the absence of legislation

Has the Supreme Court Become the World's Most Powerful Judiciary?

Arguments in Favour

• Extraordinarily wide judicial review, PIL jurisdiction and the Basic Structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973)
• Power to strike down constitutional amendments — rare among democracies, including the US and UK
• Suo motu cognizance and continuing mandamus give courts sustained oversight over executive action
• Ability to issue binding guidelines in the absence of legislation (e.g., Vishaka)

Arguments Urging Caution

• Judicial overreach criticised — courts entering policy domains best left to elected branches (e.g., liquor ban near highways, BCCI restructuring)
• PIL misuse — frivolous, publicity-driven ("Publicity Interest Litigation") petitions clogging court dockets
• Separation of powers concerns — courts effectively legislating through guidelines in a policy vacuum
• Delay in disposal of PILs itself undermines the objective of speedy justice for the marginalised

Conclusion: PIL has uniquely empowered the Indian judiciary among world democracies to protect fundamental rights and enforce accountability, but sustained self-restraint remains essential to preserve its legitimacy and the constitutional separation of powers.