Eric Linge, Pitt law '09, files from Mumbai:

The Indian Supreme Court has made itself into possibly the most powerful apex court in the world. As addressed in "India: Judicially Independent," below on this page, the Indian Supreme Court held in Kesavanand Bharati v. Kerala that the Court can strike down any constitutional amendment that alters the basic structure of the Constitution. Neither the House of Lords in England, nor the highest courts in Canada and Australia, nor the Supreme Court of the United States have this power.

And with its huge competence, the Indian Supreme Court often legislates, directing society the way it sees fit through the so-called public interest litigations, or PILs. The Constitution makes the Supreme Court the guarantor of the fundamental rights of the people of India. However, the majority of Indians could be called ignorant and poor, and this majority population tends to not know their rights or even how to bring suits in court. PILs developed as a means for this majority population to also have access to the judiciary to receive redress for the violations of their rights.

The key to the PILs is the relaxation of standing requirements. Nearly anyone can bring a PIL, even if the person bringing the suit wasn't personally wronged. In 1982 the Court declared that the judiciary does not exist to serve only the rich, and with PILs "The portals of the Court are being thrown open to the poor and downtrodden." P.U.D.R. v. India. Social action groups such as Peoples Union for Civil Liberties and Peoples Union for Democratic Rights bring suits on behalf of underprivileged portions of society. Lawyers have initiated suits upon merely reading about incidents in the newspaper.

Another key is that all formal pleading requirements are waived for PILs. The court famously began initiating suits upon receiving letters detailing abuses of rights. And the court has even allowed suits that complain of violations of basic human rights, in addition to the fundamental rights that are positively listed in the Constitution.

With PILs the scope of mandamus was broadened. In one PIL mandamus was issued ordering the State to educate the children of prostitutes. In another PIL mandamus banned judges from taking post-retirement jobs in government agencies.

The Court also issues directives in the course of PILs for appointing committees or requesting the government to carry out schemes. For instance, the Court directed a national bank to grant loans to rickshaw pullers and even created a whole scheme for the repayment of these loans. Directions issued in another case detailed how blood should be collected, stored, given for transfusion, and how blood transfusions could be made safe.

Writs of mandamus and directives don't necessarily have to be legislative, but they often are. The legislation appears in court dicta, and the Court has held that the government and lower courts are bound by dicta.