Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Environmental Protection
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has emerged as one of the most influential judicial mechanisms for environmental protection in India. It has converted the higher judiciary into an active protector of ecological interests by allowing citizens, NGOs and social groups to directly approach constitutional courts to secure environmental justice, even when they are not personally affected by the harm.
Concept and evolution of PIL
PIL refers to litigation initiated to protect or enforce rights and interests that belong not just to an individual, but to the public or a specific section of society, particularly those who may not be in a position to access the courts themselves. In India, PIL took shape in the late 1970s and early 1980s as a part of the broader phase of judicial activism, when the Supreme Court relaxed the traditional rule of locus standi in cases involving collective rights and social welfare.
Initially, PIL cases focused on issues like bonded labour, undertrial prisoners and the rights of disadvantaged groups. Gradually, as the judiciary recognized the close connection between a healthy environment and human rights, PIL became a key vehicle for addressing environmental concerns. A crucial basis for this development was the expansive interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, where the Supreme Court held that the “right to life” includes the right to live in a clean, safe and healthy environment. This understanding enabled individuals and organizations to challenge pollution, ecological degradation, governmental inaction and flawed policies through writ petitions under Articles 32 and 226. Consequently, courts became central arenas for environmental governance, working alongside the legislature and executive.[1]
Constitutional and legal foundation
Environmental PIL in India is grounded in both constitutional provisions and statutory law. Constitutionally, three provisions are especially important: Article 21, which guarantees the right to life; Article 48A, which directs the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife; and Article 51A(g), which imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment. Courts often interpret these provisions together to affirm that environmental protection is a shared obligation of both the State and citizens.
On the statutory front, a range of environmental enactments form the legal backdrop against which PIL operates. These include the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 and the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, among others. Through PIL, courts have issued directions to ensure stricter implementation of these laws, compelled pollution control boards and other authorities to perform their statutory duties, and framed guidelines or standards where the legislation was silent or inadequate. In this way, PIL has often been used to strengthen and operationalise the existing regulatory framework.[2]
Relaxed locus standi and procedural innovations
One of the hallmarks of PIL is the dilution of the conventional rule of locus standi. In environmental matters, courts have permitted any concerned citizen, lawyer, activist or organisation to approach them in the public interest, even if they are not directly injured by the environmental harm. This relaxation is particularly significant because those most affected by environmental degradation—such as rural communities, tribals and the urban poor—often lack awareness, resources or access to legal remedies. Environmental damage also tends to be diffuse, impacting large populations and ecosystems rather than a single identifiable victim.
To make environmental justice more accessible, courts have accepted petitions in informal formats, including letters or postcards, and have entertained PILs filed by NGOs and public-spirited individuals. Procedurally, the judiciary has adopted several innovations in environmental PILs: appointing expert committees and commissioners for on-ground fact-finding, engaging amicus curiae to assist the court, and relying on scientific and technical reports. The device of “continuing mandamus”, whereby a case is kept pending and the court periodically monitors compliance with its orders, has become common in complex environmental issues such as river clean-up, vehicular pollution control and urban waste management. This ongoing supervision has often been essential to ensure that court directions are actually implemented.[3]
Landmark principles and doctrines
Environmental PIL has served as the primary channel through which several foundational principles of environmental law have been incorporated into Indian jurisprudence. Among the most notable is the “polluter pays” principle, which requires that those who cause pollution bear the cost of preventing, controlling and remedying the damage, including compensating affected communities and restoring the environment.
The Supreme Court has also embraced the “precautionary principle”, which mandates that preventive measures be taken where there is a risk of serious environmental harm, even if full scientific certainty is lacking. This approach shifts the burden towards avoiding potential damage rather than waiting for conclusive proof.
Another key doctrine that has taken root through PIL is “sustainable development”, which seeks to harmonise economic growth with environmental conservation. Courts have stressed that development projects must be environmentally viable and that decision-makers should factor in environmental costs, inter-generational equity and long-term ecological impacts. Additionally, the public trust doctrine has been applied to hold that the State acts as a trustee of natural resources such as forests, rivers, coastal zones and wildlife, and cannot permit their degradation, alienation or commercial exploitation in a manner inconsistent with public interest. These principles now influence governmental policy-making and administrative decisions across various sectors.ṣ[4]
Impact on environmental governance
The overall impact of PIL on environmental governance in India has been substantial. Judicial interventions through PIL have led to orders for closure or relocation of polluting industries, stricter enforcement of effluent and emission standards, protection and rejuvenation of rivers and lakes, regulation of mining activities, conservation of forests and wildlife habitats, and measures to control urban air pollution. Faced with judicial scrutiny, many administrative bodies, including pollution control boards and municipal authorities, have been compelled to become more active and accountable.
PILs have also helped catalyse institutional developments. They created momentum for specialised forums like the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which now plays a central role in adjudicating environmental disputes. Moreover, environmental PIL has significantly enhanced public awareness, bringing issues such as industrial contamination, deforestation, climate-related vulnerabilities and urban environmental degradation into mainstream policy and media discourse. Civil society groups frequently use PIL as a strategic tool to challenge ecologically harmful projects, demand rigorous environmental impact assessments, and insist on transparency and public participation in environmental decision-making.[5]
Challenges and misuse
Despite its transformative role, environmental PIL faces a number of concerns. One recurring problem is the gap between judicial orders and ground-level implementation. Even when courts pass progressive and detailed directions, execution may be slow, partial or ineffective due to bureaucratic inertia, lack of capacity, resource constraints or political resistance. This implementation deficit can blunt the impact of PIL and leave affected communities still exposed to environmental hazards.
Another criticism relates to allegations of judicial overreach. In some PILs involving large infrastructure projects, land use changes or industrial policies, the courts’ directions are said to encroach upon domains that constitutionally belong to the legislature or executive. Such interventions can have wide economic and policy implications, raising questions about institutional competence, separation of powers and democratic accountability.
Additionally, the misuse of PIL has become a serious concern. Some petitions are filed under the label of “public interest” but actually pursue private, commercial or political agendas. This has led courts to adopt a more cautious approach, with greater emphasis on screening PILs, examining the bona fides of petitioners and imposing costs in frivolous or motivated cases. Balancing openness to genuine environmental grievances with the need to deter abuse remains a key challenge.[6]
Way forward
For PIL to continue to serve as an effective instrument of environmental protection, its use must remain principled, responsible and well-supported by institutions. Courts should encourage sincere, well-founded environmental PILs while firmly discouraging vexatious or publicity-oriented litigation, potentially through stricter scrutiny at the admission stage and the imposition of exemplary costs where misuse is established. Framing clearer criteria for identifying bona fide environmental public interest cases can also help preserve the integrity of the mechanism.
Equally important is strengthening the capacity of regulatory bodies and improving coordination among the judiciary, executive authorities and expert institutions. Ensuring that judicial directions are backed by robust scientific and technical inputs, adequate administrative follow-up and participatory monitoring by local communities can significantly enhance their effectiveness. If deployed carefully and supported by strong institutions, PIL can continue to function as a powerful constitutional tool to safeguard India’s environment, protect the rights of present and future generations, and ensure that development proceeds without breaching ecological limits.[7]
[1] https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/public-interest-litigation
[2] https://cnlu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Ensuring-Right-to-Clean-Environment-through-Public-Interest-Litigation-in-India-Some-Reflections-by-Dr.-Manoj-Kumar.pdf
[3] https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/role-public-interest-litigation-environmental-protection.html
[4] https://www.pahujalawacademy.com/the-role-of-pil-in-ensuring-environmental-justice
[5] https://www.legaljourney.in/post/what-is-a-public-interest-litigation
[6] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379779717_Public_Interest_Environmental_Litigation
[7] https://ielrc.org/content/a9503.pdf
