Q. What is meant by Public Interest Litigation (PIL)? Describe the nature of court orders that are passed by courts in PIL case

Introduction:
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a judicially evolved tool in 1979 through Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, that permits individuals or groups to seek legal remedies in matters affecting public welfare. Rooted in Articles 32 and 226, it democratizes justice by empowering courts to intervene for social, environmental, and constitutional causes.

Body:
A. Legal Foundation and Evolution of PIL
-Constitutional writ jurisdiction
a. Based on Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts)
b. Enables issuance of writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and public duties
c. Not defined in statute, but developed through judicial interpretation

-Relaxation of locus standi
a. Traditional rule limited petitions to directly affected individuals
b. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), the Court allowed third-party petitions in public interest
c. Opened judicial access for marginalized and voiceless groups

-Judicial recognition through precedent
a. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), a postcard led to the release of 40,000 undertrial prisoners
b. The Court recognized speedy trial as a part of Article 21

-Suo motu jurisdiction
a. Courts take up matters without formal petitions, based on letters or media reports
b. Reflects proactive judicial intervention
-Example: Morbi Bridge Collapse (2022) taken up suo motu by the Gujarat High Court

B. Nature of Court Orders in PIL Cases
-Directive and structural orders
a. Courts issue systemic directions affecting executive functioning
b. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha, the Court ensured bonded labour rehabilitation
c. Orders include compliance timelines and institutional responsibility

-Policy-forming guidelines
a. Courts fill legislative voids by framing binding norms
b. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), guidelines on sexual harassment at workplace were laid down
c. Later codified under the Sexual Harassment Act, 2013

-Continuing mandamus
a. Courts keep cases open with periodic reviews to monitor implementation
b. Seen in MC Mehta's cases on Ganga pollution and Delhi air quality
c. Ensures long-term judicial oversight

-Suo motu relief in emergencies
a. Courts act during governance failures or public crises
b. Example: In Morbi Bridge Collapse (2022), court demanded accountability without needing a formal petition
c. Ensures swift response and institutional redressal

-Misuse safeguards
a. As per Supreme Court guidelines (1998 & 2003), courts must assess petitioner credentials and intent
b. Frivolous or politically motivated petitions are liable for dismissal
c. Courts may impose exemplary costs to deter misuse of PIL

Conclusion:
PIL has deepened constitutional governance by amplifying the voice of the voiceless. As emphasized by the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission, its impact must be preserved through judicial restraint, procedural checks, and purpose fidelity, ensuring that it continues to thrive as a tool for institutional accountability and serving the constitutional goal of complete justice.