The Central government on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to review the framework of Public Interest Litigation (PILs), a type of court jurisdiction invoked by citizens to address issues affecting larger public interest.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made submissions for removal of PIL jurisdiction on Wednesday before a nine-judge Constitution Bench which is currently hearing a reference arising out of the Sabarimala review.

The PIL jurisdiction was evolved so that people from socially or financially weaker sections of the society who had no access to courts, could redress their grievances through third parties who approach courts on their behalf.

In his written submissions, Mehta said that the premise on which the concept of PIL existed - that large sections of the population were structurally unable to approach constitutional courts - has materially weakened over the last five decades.

"The time has come not merely to recalibrate Public Interest Litigation, but to remove it. PIL was conceived as an exceptional constitutional device for an era in which vast sections of the population were structurally unable to access courts because of poverty, illiteracy, disability, detention, social exclusion and the sheer absence of institutional legal support. Its justification rested on a real and pressing access deficit. The said deficit, though not entirely eliminated, has been substantially addressed through the development of legal aid mechanisms, institutional support structures and wider channels of access to justice. The constitutional exception has therefore outlived the factual conditions that were once thought to justify it," Mehta told the Court.

Mehta made the submission before a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant along with Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.

The Court is hearing a reference concerning religious rights. One of the questions before it is whether person not belonging to a religious group can question the practice of that religious group by filing a PIL.

Mehta argued that the majority of PILs being filed are motivated, with someone engineering them behind the scenes. He thus asked why such PILs be entertained at all.

"PIL jurisdiction was initiated in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, at a time when people had no means to approach the Court. I have pointed out in my written submissions that today the judicial system has become far more transparent and accessible. By e-filing, even a letter can reach the Court. Now, no one really needs representation through another for an unrepresented class. National Legal Services Authority is there. District Legal Services Authorities are there. If someone has no means, they can approach the District Legal Services Authority and say: my fundamental rights are violated, advise me, or file a petition on my behalf before the Supreme Court or the High Court," Mehta said.

Addressing the concerns expressed by Mehta, CJI Kant agreed that the courts have become very cautious in entertaining PILs today, particularly when people come with "different kinds of agendas".

"The answer is very simple. Nowadays…and “nowadays” does not mean only the last few years…These courts themselves have been very, very careful in entertaining PILs. We have laid down parameters to test them. Every day, we examine the real cause. There are several factors we now apply while testing a PIL. If you sit in Court No. 1, you would have seen how many PILs we actually entertain. Notices are issued only when there is substance. Perhaps from 2006 to now, 2026, over these two decades, the situation has evolved and the Court has become more cautious. The point is this: on a general principle of PIL, we may not even need to hear you," CJI Kant added.