Public interest litigation petition
Drafting, Pleading and Conveyance · Unit V · Topic 19 of 19 · 5 min read
On this page
Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.
Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.
1. How PIL developed
The traditional rule was that only a person whose own right was infringed could move a writ court. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 INSC 209, 1981 Supp SCC 87, the Supreme Court held that where a legal wrong is done to a person or class who by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability cannot approach the court, any member of the public acting bona fide may do so, and may even do so by letter. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, 1983 INSC 203, (1984) 3 SCC 161, the Court entertained a letter on bonded labour in stone quarries, treated PIL as non-adversarial, and appointed commissioners to gather facts.
The breadth of the remedy led to misuse. In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010 INSC 47, (2010) 3 SCC 402, the Court traced the history of PIL and directed courts to encourage genuine PIL and discourage petitions filed for extraneous considerations. Among its directions: each High Court should frame rules for PIL; the court should prima facie verify the petitioner’s credentials and the correctness of the contents before entertaining a PIL; it should be satisfied that substantial public interest is involved; and it should impose exemplary costs on frivolous petitions or those filed for oblique motives.
2. What a PIL petition must contain beyond an ordinary writ
- The petitioner’s credentials: occupation, address, income source (in general terms), past public work, and a statement that he has no personal interest in the matter.
- The public interest: who is affected, how many, and why they cannot come themselves.
- The research: documents obtained (for example under the Right to Information Act, 2005), surveys, photographs, newspaper reports only as a starting point, official records as the core.
- Representation first: the authorities were asked to act and did not.
- Earlier litigation: whether any petition on the same subject is pending or decided.
- A precise prayer: directions the court can supervise (survey, removal, report by a date), rather than a general prayer to “protect the environment”.
- Affidavit verifying the facts and the absence of personal interest, in the form required by the High Court’s rules for public interest litigation.
3. Model PIL petition
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU W.P. No. ____ of 2026 (PIL)
Petitioner: Sri H. R. Nagaraj, aged about 58 years, retired lecturer in geography, residing at Sahakara Nagar, Bengaluru, convenor of a residents’ welfare forum.
Respondents: (1) State of Karnataka, by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department; (2) the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District; (3) the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, by its Commissioner; (4) the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority, by its Chief Executive Officer.
WRIT PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
- Petitioner. The petitioner has for twelve years organised clean-up drives at the lakes of north Bengaluru. He has no property abutting the lake in question and no personal interest in the relief sought. He files this petition at his own cost.
- Subject. Kalyani Kere tank (Sy. No. 55, Hosahalli village, a hypothetical tank) is a public tank vested in the State, recorded as “kere” in the revenue records (Annexure A).
- The wrong. Information supplied under the Right to Information Act on 2 August 2026 (Annexure B) shows that a survey by the second respondent in 2024 found encroachments on 3 acres 20 guntas of the tank bed and buffer zone, including a compound wall and sheds. No action has followed.
- Effect on the public. The tank recharges groundwater for about 40,000 residents and receives storm water; encroachment of the bed has caused flooding of low-lying areas in each monsoon since 2023 (photographs, Annexure C).
- Representation. The petitioner wrote to the second, third and fourth respondents on 20 August 2026 (Annexure D). There has been no reply.
- Earlier litigation. To the petitioner’s knowledge no petition concerning this tank is pending in any court.
Grounds.
- (A) Tanks and lakes are held by the State in trust for the public; allowing encroachment breaches the State’s duty under the public trust doctrine and Article 21, which includes the right to a clean environment and to water.
- (B) Article 48A and Article 51A(g) direct the State and citizens to protect lakes and the environment.
- (C) The respondents’ inaction after their own survey is arbitrary and violates Article 14.
Prayer. (a) A writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to complete a fresh survey of Kalyani Kere tank, with the boundaries marked on the ground, within eight weeks; (b) a direction to the respondents to remove all encroachments found after notice and hearing to the occupants, within such time as the Court fixes; (c) a direction to the fourth respondent to file a status report; (d) such other directions as the Court thinks fit.
Sd/- Petitioner. Sd/- Advocate. Filed with: affidavit of the petitioner verifying the facts and declaring that he has no personal interest; Annexures A to D.
How this is examined
The PIL petition is named in Unit V and forms part of the drafting set (3 marks). Environmental, prisoners’ rights, child labour and public health subjects are common. At the viva: the meaning of PIL and how it differs from ordinary writ litigation; locus standi after S.P. Gupta; epistolary jurisdiction and Bandhua Mukti Morcha; the safeguards in Balwant Singh Chaufal; and costs for frivolous PIL.