The PIL Temptation: Between M. C. Mehta’s Legacy and the Reality of Judicial Overload

In the grand corridors of the Supreme Court of India, stories are often written not just by judges, but by those who dare to approach it. Among them, few names carry the weight and reverence of M. C. Mehta a lawyer who transformed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) into a powerful instrument of social change. His cases cleaned rivers, regulated industries, and redefined environmental jurisprudence in India.

But every powerful legacy casts a long shadow.

Today, many young advocates look at Mehta’s journey not just with admiration but with aspiration. The idea is compelling: file a PIL, raise a public cause, and perhaps change the law of the land. Yet, somewhere between inspiration and imitation, a troubling pattern has begun to emerge.

The Rise of the “Policy PIL”

A recent example can be seen in the series of petitions filed by advocate Sachin Gupta. On paper, the causes are diverse and arguably well-intentioned:

• Health policy reforms

• Population control measures

• Regulation of government advertisements

• Mandatory disclosure norms for shops

• Even technological safety mandates

Each petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing the government to frame policies.

At first glance, this reflects civic engagement. A concerned citizen using constitutional remedies. But when viewed collectively - dozens of petitions, many withdrawn, others repetitive a different narrative begins to take shape.

The Constitutional Tension: Courts vs Policy

The Indian Constitution empowers citizens to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32. However, this power is not without limits.

The judiciary:

• Interprets law

• Protects fundamental rights

But it does not ordinarily create policy.

Policy-making lies within the domain of:

• Legislature

• Executive

This separation is not procedural - it is foundational. When courts are repeatedly asked to direct the State to frame policies, it raises a serious constitutional question:

Are we seeking justice - or outsourcing governance to the judiciary?

From PIL to “Publicity Interest Litigation”?

This is not a new concern. Courts themselves have, over time, cautioned against the misuse of PIL jurisdiction.

Patterns that raise red flags include:

• Multiple petitions on unrelated subjects

• Repetition after dismissal

• Lack of direct violation of fundamental rights

• Broad, vague, or impractical prayers

In such cases, PIL risks transforming from:

• Public Interest Litigation → Personal Interest Litigation → Publicity Interest Litigation

This is not merely a rhetorical shift—it reflects judicial anxiety over wasted court time.

The Burden on the System

The Supreme Court already faces:

• Heavy case backlog

• Urgent constitutional matters

• Appeals affecting life and liberty

Every minute spent on a non-maintainable PIL is a minute taken away from:

• Undertrial prisoners

• Victims awaiting justice

• Constitutional crises requiring urgent adjudication

This is not about discouraging access - it is about preserving the integrity of access.

The Mehta Standard: What Made It Different

To understand the contrast, one must revisit what made M. C. Mehta’s petitions extraordinary:

• Clear violation of fundamental rights

• Strong factual foundation

• Direct public injury

• Judicially manageable remedies

He did not ask the Court to “create policy” in abstract terms. Instead, he brought concrete harm to the Court’s attention and the judiciary responded within its constitutional limits.

That distinction is critical.

Intent vs Impact

It would be unfair and inaccurate to assume that every such petition is malicious. In many cases, including that of Sachin Gupta, the intent may genuinely be public welfare.

But the legal system ultimately evaluates:

• Maintainability, not motivation

• Impact, not intention

A well-meaning petition can still:

• Be constitutionally untenable

• Burden judicial time

• Undermine serious PILs

A Necessary Reflection for Young Advocates

There is nothing wrong with ambition. Nothing wrong with wanting to make a difference.

But the path carved by pioneers like M. C. Mehta is not one of volume, but of precision.

Before filing a PIL, an advocate must ask:

• Is there a real violation of fundamental rights?

• Is the issue justiciable?

• Can the court realistically grant the relief sought?

If the answer is unclear, the courtroom may not be the right starting point.

Conclusion Between Access and Abuse

Public Interest Litigation remains one of the greatest innovations of Indian constitutional law. It democratized justice, gave voice to the voiceless, and reshaped governance.

But like all powerful tools, it demands restraint.

The story unfolding in cases like those of Sachin Gupta is not merely about one advocate. It reflects a larger moment in the legal profession - where aspiration meets constitutional reality.

The challenge is not to discourage filing PILs.

The challenge is to ensure that when a PIL is filed, it carries the weight of necessity, not just possibilit