(a) The concept of Public Interest Litigation is an exception to the rule of 'locus standi'. Elaborate in the light of its…

Public Interest Litigation: Evolution, Scope, and Drawbacks

The traditional doctrine of locus standi mandates that only an aggrieved person whose specific legal right has been violated can approach the court. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) constitutes a radical departure from this rule, democratizing access to justice by permitting any public-spirited citizen or group to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 or High Courts under Article 226 on behalf of disadvantaged sections.

The evolution of PIL gained traction in Hussainara Khatoon (1979), where the Supreme Court accepted a petition based on newspaper reports to secure the release of thousands of undertrial prisoners. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), Justice P.N. Bhagwati formally relaxed locus standi, holding that where a legal injury is caused to a person or class unable to approach the court due to poverty or disability, any member of the public acting bona fide can maintain an action. Epistolary jurisdiction was further cemented in Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984) to liberate bonded labourers, and Sheela Barse (1983) on custodial rights of women and children. In M.C. Mehta (1986) and Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the court expanded PIL into socio-economic and environmental spheres, reading the right to a wholesome environment into Article 21.

The primary aims of PIL are realizing substantive socio-economic justice, holding public authorities accountable, and enforcing non-justiciable aspirations into justiciable rights. However, PIL suffers from distinct drawbacks:

• Misuse of the forum for private, political, or publicity gains (Private Interest Litigation).
• Judicial overreach, where courts breach separation of powers by issuing policy directives to the executive.
• Compounding judicial pendency, diverting scarce institutional time away from regular litigation.

Constitution and Constitutionalism

While a Constitution is a legal instrument establishing state organs and their powers, Constitutionalism is the normative philosophy of limited government under a fundamental law to prevent authoritarian rule.

A Constitution serves as the formal grundnorm, written or unwritten, providing the framework for governance, legislative competences, and the amending process under provisions such as Article 368. Conversely, Constitutionalism imposes substantive and procedural restraints on state authority. A country may have a Constitution—even an authoritarian one—without practicing Constitutionalism.

The distinctive features of Constitutionalism include the Rule of Law, separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and entrenched fundamental rights acting as negative obligations against state encroachments. The Indian judiciary has enforced these limits through judicial review. In Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Supreme Court established the Basic Structure doctrine, ruling that Parliament’s constituent power under Article 368 is limited. In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) and Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the court affirmed that limited amending power and judicial review are themselves essential components of Constitutionalism, ensuring that the Constitution remains supreme over state organs.

President and Council of Ministers in the Parliamentary System

The Indian Constitution establishes a Westminster-style parliamentary executive comprising a nominal constitutional head (the President) and a real political executive (the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers).

The relationship is governed by the following core provisions:

• Article 74(1) mandates a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to "aid and advise" the President, who "shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice." The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act (1976) made this advice explicitly binding. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act (1978) introduced a proviso allowing the President to return advice once for reconsideration, but made the reconsidered advice strictly binding.
• Article 75(3) incorporates the bedrock of parliamentary democracy by rendering the Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha.
• Article 78 imposes a constitutional duty on the Prime Minister to communicate all executive decisions and legislative proposals to the President, preserving the President’s right to be informed, to encourage, and to warn.

The judiciary has consistently maintained that executive power is exercised by the cabinet. In Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955), the Supreme Court held that the President is the formal head, whereas real executive power vests in the Council of Ministers. In Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), a seven-judge bench ruled that the President exercises constitutional powers solely on the aid and advice of ministers, save for marginal situations such as appointing a Prime Minister in a hung Parliament or dismissing a government that has lost legislative majority.

Thus, procedural innovations like PIL, substantive limits through Constitutionalism, and ministerial responsibility under Articles 74 and 75 collectively ensure that state authority in India remains accountable, limited, and democratic.