Procedure matters: the rule of law and Public Interest Litigation in India

Thesis

This thesis examines the Supreme Court of India’s exercise of its Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) jurisdiction, which allows individuals to seek enforcement of fundamental rights on behalf of those unable to do so due to social or economic disadvantage, or as citizens addressing public injuries arising from legal violations. Although the Constitution does not expressly provide for PIL, the Court has located its constitutional foundation in Article 32. Its normative justification, as articulated by the Court, lies in the principle of the rule of law. This thesis accordingly evaluates whether; in exercising this jurisdiction, the Court has remained faithful to the core values of the rule of law – particularly non-arbitrariness, predictability, and stability.

The thesis is structured in two parts. Part I develops the conceptual scaffolding for the inquiry by constructing an adjudicative account of the rule of law and situating PIL within its historical, constitutional, and institutional context. Part II adopts a doctrinal and empirical methodology, establishing the maintainability tests – standing, pleadings, and justiciability – and examining their application in practice through an analysis of PIL cases between 1980 and 2023. It argues that the Court has largely failed to apply these tests altogether, and when applied, done so inconsistently and without clear reasoning. Part II also examines suo motu jurisdiction, a distinct sub-set of PIL in which the Court initiates proceedings on its own motion, dispensing with the requirement of a petitioner. It highlights the absence of a constitutional foundation or procedural thresholds governing this jurisdiction.

The thesis demonstrates that the Court’s exercise of its PIL jurisdiction has been marked by doctrinal inconsistency, selective application of maintainability standards, and – in the case of suo motu jurisdiction – an absence of institutional guardrails and selective intervention. These shortcomings have produced a jurisprudence marked by arbitrariness, unpredictability, and incoherence, undermining key values of the rule of law. The conclusion transitions from findings to explanations, identifying internal design choices and institutional tendencies that sustain the Court’s resistance to doctrinal clarity. In response, the thesis advances a principled framework of adjudication – one that is constitutionally grounded, procedurally disciplined, and institutionally coherent.

Authors: Tripathi, S

• DOI: 10.5287/ora-8ng0qoybg
• Type of award: DPhil
• Level of award: Doctoral
• Awarding institution: University of Oxford
• Language: English
• Keywords: rule of law; Suo Motu Jurisdiction; public interest litigation; Supreme Court of India
• Subjects: Public Law; Comparative Constitutional Law; Constitutional Law