Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of a large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities.

The doctrine of separation of powers implies minimal interference by one organ in the functioning of another organ. However, recently judicial legislation has emerged as a process in which the judiciary does the duty of the legislature and formulates laws, rules and regulations. One of the mechanisms for Judicial legislation is Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Antithetical to Separation of Power:

It is argued that the social and economic domain should be largely the prerogative of the other branches of government, which are better equipped to analyse, formulate, and implement complex policies, and that much of PIL is inappropriate judicial activism” or “adventurism. PIL has significantly contributed, to expand their own powers and shield themselves from scrutiny and accountability. To some, it appears as though the courts may be spending time on frivolous and ineffectual PIL cases at the expense of the real administration of justice, and choose to do so because PIL burnishes their popularity, no matter if it goes against Separation of Power.

Justification of large number of Public Interest litigation:

1. Liberal Interpretation of Locus Standi: Locus Standi means a right or capacity of an individual to approach or appear in a court on the behalf of any person that is economically or physically incapable of appearing in a court.

2. Making Socio Economic Right Judicially enforceable: Even though social and economic rights have been laid down in Part IV of the Indian constitution, the PILs aren’t legally enforceable under the constitution. Therefore, the courts have listed under the fundamental rights thus making them judicially enforceable. For example: Under Article 21 which states ‘right to life’ also inculcates the right to free legal aid, live with dignity, education, work, freedom from torture, etc.

3. Giving voice to the voiceless: In Hussainara Khatoon case, PIL concentrated on the barbaric conditions of prisons and how the prisoners who were under trial were kept in those prisons.

4. Raise awareness on Important question: Supreme Court in Parmanand Katara Judgement ensured action against public officials who coerce or intimidate Good Samaritans to reveal his or her name and personal details.

5. Direct Access to Justice: In the Asiad Workers judgement case, Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that anyone getting less than the minimum wage can approach the Supreme Court directly without going through the labour commissioner and lower courts. 

The concept of Public Interest Litigation has managed to bring out surprising results that were impossible to derive 5 decades ago. Many cases of degraded bonded labourers, blinded prisoners, exploited children, etc got relief from PILs filed by various social activists.