This article is written by Piyush Kumar Das of Delhi Metropolitan Education affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
ABSTRACT
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has emerged as a transformative mechanism within modern constitutional democracies, allowing the judiciary to directly address social injustices that often fall outside the reach of traditional litigation. While much attention has been given to the role of courts in shaping the contours of PIL, this article centers the conversation on the advocate—the lawyer who initiates, frames, and sustains PIL as an instrument of social reform. Drawing on landmark cases, comparative perspectives, and legal scholarship, the article explores how advocates function not only as litigators but as moral agents, strategists, and public storytellers. It argues that advocates act as essential catalysts for legal reform, using the tools of the courtroom to amplify the voices of the marginalized, reinterpret constitutional values, and challenge systemic inequality. Through a deep dive into the history, evolution, and future trajectories of PIL, the article reveals that the power of this legal innovation lies not solely in judicial pronouncements, but in the courage and creativity of those who bring public causes before the court. In doing so, it repositions the advocate at the center of the law’s transformative potential.
KEYWORD
PIL, advocates, transformative potential, legal potential
INTRODUCTION
IN the grand theatre of justice, the advocate has traditionally been cast in the role of a defender—arguing for private individuals, corporations, or states. Yet, in modern constitutional democracies, a parallel role has emerged: that of a social engineer, a legal reformer, and a voice for the voiceless. Public Interest Litigation (PIL), a uniquely transformative judicial innovation, has enabled advocates to step beyond their traditional boundaries and become catalysts of legal change. Public Interest Litigation is not merely a procedural innovation—it is an ethical and constitutional instrument for the realization of social justice. While PIL is often associated with the judiciary’s activism, this paper argues that it is, in fact, the advocate who plays the most critical catalytic role. Advocates identify systemic injustices, translate social grievances into legal arguments, and push the judiciary into new interpretive and reformative territories. This article examines how PIL developed, the role of advocates in shaping its trajectory, and how they have served as agents of transformative legal reform—both within and beyond the courtroom.
THE BIRTH OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION HISTORICAL AND JURISPRUDENTIAL ORIGINS
The roots of PIL can be traced back to a global shift in the understanding of legal standing and access to justice in the mid-20th century. In countries like the United States, PIL began as a civil rights tool in the 1960s and 70s, notably with organizations like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund litigating for racial equality [1]. In India, it blossomed in the late 1970s and early 1980s under the liberal interpretation of locus standi by the Supreme Court.
The landmark case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [3] is often credited with giving birth to PIL in India. Justice Bhagwati noted that where the poor or disadvantaged cannot reach the courts, “any public-spirited individual” can approach the court on their behalf. This judicial relaxation of procedural barriers did not happen in a vacuum—it was enabled and catalyzed by advocates willing to use litigation not for personal gain, but for social transformation.
In many jurisdictions, PIL emerged as a response to democratic deficits—where representative institutions failed to protect minorities, the environment, or the indigent. Advocates stepped in, not as mere legal technicians, but as reformers who believed in the Constitution as a living document capable of producing social change.
THE ADVOCATE AS A SOCIAL CONSCIENCE FROM LEGAL PRACTITIONER TO LEGAL ACTIVIST
While judges ultimately pronounce the law, it is often advocates who frame the questions the judiciary is compelled to answer. In PIL, this framing goes beyond narrow disputes. It involves identifying systemic injustices and crafting constitutional arguments that press the judiciary to expand rights jurisprudence.
Take for example Advocate Kapil Sibal, who played a significant role in PILs concerning environmental regulation and governance accountability. Or consider Indira Jaising, whose feminist advocacy in PIL matters contributed to progressive judgments on domestic violence, child rights, and workplace harassment (Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan [7]).
These advocates function not merely as litigators, but as “cause lawyers” [2], who deliberately choose public causes that challenge institutional inertia. They act as intermediaries between marginalized communities and judicial power, often investing years in gathering evidence, mobilizing public opinion, and pursuing cases through complex litigation cycles.
Their role is deeply human. It involves storytelling—translating the raw grief of environmental displacement or custodial violence into constitutional claims. It is advocacy not just in court filings, but in the moral imagination of society.
FRAMING LEGAL REFORM THROUGH PIL STRUCTURAL VS SYMBOLIC LITIGATION
Not all PILs aim to strike down laws or obtain landmark verdicts. Some seek symbolic recognition of harm, while others push for structural reform. In either case, the advocate plays a vital role in translating lived realities into legal categories.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [4], it was not the bonded laborers who came to court—it was a human rights advocate who petitioned on their behalf. This litigation not only secured relief for the workers but also catalyzed legislative reform and greater enforcement of labor laws.
Similarly, environmental litigation spearheaded by M.C. Mehta led to the introduction of the “polluter pays” principle and precautionary principle in Indian environmental jurisprudence (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [5]). Mehta was not a victim of pollution—he was an advocate who strategically used PIL as a tool for environmental regulation.
These cases demonstrate how advocates, by pursuing public causes, expand the very notion of “harm” in law. They shift the judicial gaze from individual disputes to collective injustices, from remedying to reforming.
CHALLENGES AND ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN PIL ADVOCACY
Despite its promise, PIL is not without criticism. Courts have often lamented the misuse of PIL for private gain, political vendetta, or media attention. The Indian Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal [6] cautioned against “publicity interest litigation.”
For advocates, this creates a delicate balance. How does one maintain the integrity of PIL while navigating political sensitivities, client invisibility, and media scrutiny? Advocates must guard against paternalism—wherein they presume to speak for the marginalized without sufficiently engaging with them.
There is also the problem of institutional backlash. Some PILs, particularly those challenging state surveillance or military impunity, have triggered resistance from the executive. Advocates pursuing such causes often face professional or personal risks—ranging from bar sanctions to threats of violence.
Thus, PIL advocacy is not merely about legal skill—it is a vocation of courage. It requires not just constitutional imagination, but emotional stamina and moral clarity.
STRATEGIC LITIGATION AND LEGAL MOBILIZATION THE ROLE OF NGOS AND LEGAL COLLECTIVES
Today, many PILs are not filed by individual lawyers, but by legal collectives or NGOs. Organizations like the Lawyers Collective (India), ACLU (USA), and Legal Resources Centre (South Africa) have institutionalized PIL advocacy. These groups often operate at the intersection of legal aid, research, community organizing, and strategic litigation.
Strategic litigation involves choosing cases that can set precedent, generate public awareness, and build coalitions for reform. A notable example is the Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [8], which challenged Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Though initially overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013, sustained advocacy by lawyers and civil society eventually led to the decriminalization of homosexuality in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [9].
Here, we see the long arc of legal reform, shaped not by one heroic lawyer, but by a network of advocates, activists, and communities. The PIL becomes not just a court case, but a campaign.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES COMPARATIVE INSIGHTS INTO ADVOCATE-LED PIL REFORM
Around the world, PIL has taken different forms but shares a common thread—the role of the advocate as a reformist. In South Africa, post-apartheid litigation on socio-economic rights saw lawyers like Geoff Budlender argue for the enforcement of housing rights under Section 26 of the Constitution (Government of the Republic of South Africa v. Grootboom [10]).
In the Philippines, environmental advocates used PIL to assert the “right to a balanced and healthful ecology” under Article II, Section 16 of the Constitution, as seen in Oposa v. Factoran
These cases highlight the universality of advocate-led legal reform in constitutional democracies. While the tools and timelines vary, the core remains the same: an advocate’s belief that the law can be pushed to reflect justice more perfectly.
THE FUTURE OF PILTOWARDS A PARTICIPATORY MODEL OF LEGAL REFORM
As we move into a more connected, yet increasingly unequal world, the advocate’s role in PIL is likely to evolve. Technology enables wider access to legal knowledge, but also raises new challenges—such as digital surveillance, data privacy, and algorithmic injustice.
Advocates must now grapple with new frontiers: litigating for climate justice, platform accountability, or refugee rights. These are complex, diffuse issues, requiring interdisciplinary fluency and transnational collaboration.
The future of PIL lies in its democratization—not just in filing cases for the public, but alongside them. Participatory litigation models, where communities co-design legal strategies, are becoming more prevalent. The advocate becomes a facilitator of rights, not just a narrator of them.
In this vision, the advocate is not a hero—but a catalyst. A person who, through knowledge, empathy, and courage, transforms law into a living instrument of justice.
CONCLUSION
Public Interest Litigation has given advocates a new kind of power—not the power of wealth or authority, but the power to speak for justice when others cannot. Whether they are challenging bonded labor, environmental destruction, or discrimination, advocates have proven that the law can be made to listen.
Their role is not merely to win cases, but to widen the conversation, deepen the conscience of the judiciary, and hold the mirror of the Constitution to a society that often forgets its promises.
PIL is not a magic wand. It does not solve poverty or inequality by itself. But it reminds us—again and again—that law, in the hands of a committed advocate, can become a language of hope.
REFERENCES
1. Chayes, A. (1976). The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation. Harvard Law Review, 89(7), pp.1281–1316.
2. Sarat, A. and Scheingold, S. (2005). Cause Lawyers and Social Movements. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
3. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 149.
4. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802.
5. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 SCR (1) 819.
6. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2004 SC 280.
7. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011.
8. Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2009 DLT 277 (Del HC).
9. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4321.
10. Government of the Republic of South Africa v. Grootboom, 2000 (11) BCLR 1169 (CC).
11. Oposa v. Factor an, G.R. No. 101083 (1993), Supreme Court of the Philippines.
12. Jaising, I. (2008). Bringing Rights Home: Review of Judicial Activism and Social Change in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 43(46), pp.11–14
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
0 Comments