PILs, also called postcard petitions, were instituted as a means to help ordinary people sidestep judicial delays to secure justice. Today, they contribute to the backlog as they are subjected to massive misuse by those who file them for frivolous reasons. PILs also unduly empower the judiciary over the legislature and executive, disturbing the delicate balance of institutions so essential to a democracy.
Courts are meant to interpret law, but with PIL they vested themselves with executive and legislative authority, by issuing administrative fiats and creating law with a stroke of a pen.
The institution of PIL stepped into a vacuum created by the declining credibility of the executive and legislature. But since the judiciary is not directly accountable to the people, such exercise of power is undesirable. PIL supporters exaggerate their beneficial social impact. PILs might have worked as agents of change in the late 70s and 80s, but no longer. The PIL movement began by taking up the cause of undertrials in Bihar (1979), Asiad workers (1982) and bonded labourers (1984); today, the cases no longer directly concern the dispossessed, be it corruption, hawala, fodder scam or petrol pump allotments where powerful interest groups can play a role.
If the nature of PILs has changed, it is due to an altered political and social context. In at least two recent cases, the weaker sections of society have been badly hit. In the Godaverman case, the Supreme Court admitted an intervention on the Scheduled Castes and Tribes Bill, 2005 (which is now a law) even before it was debated in Parliament. The intervention, by seeking to evict tribals from natural parks and sanctuaries in order to protect wildlife, compromises the livelihood of tribal communities. In an earlier case in 1996, the court ordered the closure of 167 heavy industries in Delhi on grounds of pollution, without hearing the views of the party worst hit by the verdict ��� the workers. From Asiad to 1997, the PIL wheel has come full circle. Time to bury the practice.