UPSC GS Paper II: Judiciary, Judicial Activism vs Overreach, PIL History

Must?Know

• Judicial activism refers to proactive judicial intervention to enforce rights or check executive/legislative excess; overreach occurs when judiciary usurps functions of other branches, as seen in S.R. Bommai (1994) where SC struck down President’s Rule but avoided policy-making.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL) originated in India in the late 1970s; first recognized in Hussainara Khatoon (1979), which addressed undertrial prisoners’ right to speedy trial under Article 21.
• Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer were instrumental in expanding PIL jurisprudence, transforming it into a tool for social justice for marginalized groups.
• In Mumbai Kamgar Sabha (1980), SC held that any member of the public can file a PIL for enforcement of constitutional or legal rights of others.
• The concept of locus standi was relaxed in PIL cases; in SP Gupta (1981), SC allowed public-spirited individuals to file petitions on behalf of those unable to approach courts.
• Article 32 grants the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights; PILs are often filed under this article.
• Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and “any other purpose,” making it broader than Article 32.
• The term “judicial overreach” gained prominence after the 2G spectrum allocation judgment (2012), where SC canceled licenses, directing re-auction, seen by critics as policy intrusion.
• In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), SC held that PIL cannot be used for private grievances disguised as public interest.
• The Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986) ordered closure of polluting industries around Delhi, expanding environmental jurisprudence under Article 21.
• In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), SC laid down guidelines against sexual harassment at workplace in absence of legislation, later codified as POSH Act, 2013.
• The NJAC judgment (2015) struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, reaffirming the collegium system; critics argued it was judicial overreach into legislative domain.
• In Ramakrishna Dalmia v. Tendulkar (1958), SC first interpreted Article 21 expansively, holding that procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) overruled A.K. Gopalan (1950), establishing that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interlinked – the “golden triangle.”
• PIL misuse led to guidelines in In Re: Use of Official Vehicles for Transport of School Children (2007), where SC imposed costs for frivolous petitions.
• The Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) held that right to livelihood is integral to right to life under Article 21.
• In Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), SC recognized right to education as part of Article 21, later codified via 86th Amendment (2002) and RTE Act, 2009.
• The court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984) treated a letter from an NGO as a PIL, reinforcing epistolary jurisdiction.
• In Lachmandas v. State of Rajasthan (1980), SC emphasized that PILs must serve public interest, not personal or political motives.
• The Supreme Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) balanced development and displacement, upholding dam construction but mandating rehabilitation.
• In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), SC recognized the right to die with dignity, permitting passive euthanasia under strict guidelines.
• The court in PUCL v. Union of India (1997) monitored electoral reforms, directing disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidates.
• In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), SC struck down Section 66A of IT Act, emphasizing free speech under Article 19(1)(a), while distinguishing legitimate state restrictions.
• In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), SC unanimously held that right to privacy is intrinsic to Article 21.

Difficulty Level

Intermediate – requires understanding of evolving jurisprudence, landmark cases, and fine line between activism and overreach, frequently tested in mains and prelims.

Common UPSC Traps

Trap: PIL was introduced by the 42nd Amendment – Fact: PIL evolved through judicial interpretation in the 1980s; the 42nd Amendment (1976) expanded DPSPs but did not create PIL.
Trap: Judicial overreach and judicial activism are mutually exclusive – Fact: Overreach is a critique of excessive activism; both involve proactive judiciary but differ in constitutional propriety, as seen in NJAC (2015) judgment.
Trap: Only citizens can file PILs – Fact: Any public-spirited individual or organization can file PIL, even non-citizens in some cases, as in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003).
Trap: Article 32 is wider than Article 226 – Fact: Article 226 is wider because it allows writs for “any other purpose” beyond fundamental rights, while Article 32 is limited to FR enforcement.

Practice MCQs

Question: Which of the following cases first established that the procedure under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable?
A) A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
B) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
C) Ramakrishna Dalmia v. Tendulkar
D) Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi
Answer: C
Explanation: Ramakrishna Dalmia (1958) first introduced the idea that procedure under Article 21 must be fair, later expanded in Maneka Gandhi (1978).
Why others fail: B is tempting as Maneka Gandhi is more famous, but Dalmia laid the initial groundwork.

Question: The relaxation of locus standi in PIL cases was first significantly recognized in:
A) Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar
B) SP Gupta v. Union of India
C) Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation
D) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
Answer: B
Explanation: SP Gupta (1981) explicitly held that public-spirited individuals can maintain PILs, formalizing relaxed locus standi.
Why others fail: A is earlier (1979) but focused on speedy trial, not locus standi doctrine.

Question: Which of the following statements best reflects the Supreme Court’s stance on judicial overreach in the NJAC judgment (2015)?
A) The judiciary must defer to parliamentary will in judicial appointments
B) The collegium system was declared unconstitutional
C) The judiciary has the final authority to protect the basic structure of the Constitution
D) The President can override judicial recommendations in appointments
Answer: C
Explanation: NJAC judgment upheld judicial primacy in appointments to protect independence of judiciary, a basic feature.
Why others fail: A is incorrect as SC rejected parliamentary dominance; B is false as collegium was upheld.

Question: In which case did the Supreme Court recognize the right to a clean environment as part of Article 21?
A) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak)
B) Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India
C) Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh
D) Indian Council of Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
Answer: C
Explanation: Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (1985) addressed limestone mining in Doon Valley, first recognizing environmental protection under Article 21.
Why others fail: B is often cited but came later (1996); C is the earliest such recognition.

Question: The concept of epistolary jurisdiction in PIL was first applied in:
A) Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar
B) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
C) SP Gupta v. Union of India
D) People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India
Answer: B
Explanation: In Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984), a letter from an NGO was treated as a PIL, establishing epistolary jurisdiction.
Why others fail: A involved letters but did not formally establish the doctrine; B is the recognized origin.

Last?Minute Revision

• PIL originated in India in late 1970s; first in Hussainara Khatoon (1979).
• Justice P.N. Bhagwati is called the father of PIL in India.
• Article 32 is a fundamental right; Article 226 is a constitutional right.
• Maneka Gandhi (1978) linked Articles 14, 19, 21 – “golden triangle.”
• A.K. Gopalan (1950) treated Articles 19 and 21 as separate; overruled by Maneka.
• SP Gupta (1981) formalized relaxed locus standi in PIL.
• Vishaka guidelines (1997) became law via POSH Act, 2013.
• NJAC struck down in 2015; collegium system revived.
• 42nd Amendment (1976) added Fundamental Duties; not related to PIL.
• Right to education recognized under Article 21 in Unnikrishnan (1993).
• Narmada Bachao Andolan (2000) upheld Sardar Sarovar Project with rehabilitation.
• Shreya Singhal (2015) struck down Section 66A of IT Act.
• Puttaswamy (2017) declared privacy a fundamental right under Article 21.
• Olga Tellis (1985) held livelihood part of right to life.
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984) treated NGO letter as PIL.
• M.C. Mehta cases expanded environmental jurisprudence under Article 21.
• 86th Amendment (2002) inserted Article 21A for RTE.
• PUCL (1997) mandated disclosure of criminal records by candidates.
• Subhash Kumar (1991) ruled PIL cannot be for private grievance.
• Lachmandas (1980) emphasized genuine public interest in PIL.
• Epistolary jurisdiction allows filing PIL via letter.
• Judicial overreach criticism rose after 2G judgment (2012).
• Article 226 wider than Article 32 due to “any other purpose” clause.
• Right to die with dignity permitted in Common Cause (2018).
• Mumbai Kamgar Sabha (1980) allowed public to file PIL for others’ rights.
• verify from standard source: Exact year of first PIL filing in India (commonly cited as 1979).