Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world's most powerful judiciary ?

Reasons for the Growth of Public Interest Litigation in India

Several factors contributed to the growth of PIL in India:

• Liberalization of Locus Standi: The traditional rule requiring a directly affected party to approach the court was relaxed. In SP Gupta v. Union of India (1982), the Supreme Court held that any public-spirited citizen could file a PIL.
• Judicial Activism: Judges like P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer actively encouraged PILs, viewing the judiciary as a protector of fundamental rights and social justice.
• Fundamental Rights Enforcement: PILs were frequently used to enforce fundamental rights, particularly Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22, for vulnerable sections of society.
• Awareness and Media: Increased legal awareness among citizens, coupled with media coverage of social injustices, fueled the filing of PILs.
• Absence of Effective Remedies: PILs filled a void where executive and legislative mechanisms were failing to address systemic issues and protect citizens’ rights.

Has the Indian Supreme Court Emerged as the World’s Most Powerful Judiciary?

While the Indian Supreme Court has undoubtedly become a powerful institution due to PIL, claiming it is the “most powerful” globally requires careful consideration. Here’s an assessment:

Arguments Supporting the Claim

• Extensive Jurisdiction: The SC has original, appellate, and advisory jurisdiction, covering a wide range of legal and constitutional matters.
• Power of Judicial Review: The SC possesses the power to strike down laws enacted by the Parliament and executive actions that violate the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973).
• Enforcement of Fundamental Rights: Through PILs, the SC has actively enforced fundamental rights, issuing directions to governments and public authorities to address issues like environmental pollution, prison reforms, and human rights violations.
• Development of New Legal Doctrines: The SC has developed doctrines like the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, which limits the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
• Contempt of Court Power: The SC’s power to punish for contempt of court reinforces its authority.

Limitations and Counterarguments

• Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that the SC sometimes oversteps its boundaries, encroaching upon the domains of the executive and legislature.
• Backlog of Cases: A massive backlog of cases hinders the SC’s ability to deliver timely justice. As of 2023, over 70,000 cases were pending (Source: National Judicial Data Grid).
• Implementation Challenges: SC directions are often difficult to implement due to bureaucratic inertia and lack of political will.
• Comparative Perspective: Judiciaries in countries like the US (with its power of judicial review and constitutional interpretation) and Germany (with its Constitutional Court) also wield significant power. The US Supreme Court’s decisions on landmark cases like Roe v. Wade demonstrate comparable influence.
• Political Influence: Concerns regarding potential political influence on judicial appointments and decisions remain.

Comparative Table: Powers of Supreme Courts (India, US, Germany)

Feature	Indian Supreme Court	US Supreme Court	German Federal Constitutional Court
Judicial Review	Extensive – can strike down laws	Extensive – can declare laws unconstitutional	Extensive – can declare laws unconstitutional
Original Jurisdiction	Limited to disputes between states/centre	Limited – cases involving ambassadors, disputes between states	Limited – constitutional complaints
PIL Equivalent	Strong PIL tradition	Limited – relies more on class action suits	Constitutional complaints allow for individual redress
Contempt Power	Strong	Moderate	Moderate