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

The directives and writs of PILs and the hearings of PILs in court are regular news in India today. The PIL movement was begun by the Supreme Court in 1978. The '70s were a troubled time in the history of India, but the judiciary emerged from this period with new strength and legitimacy. PILs were a contributing factor. The public and the politicians began holding the courts in higher regard and even today continue to hold them so.

The back and forth bickering between the government and the Court that defined the Court's early existence (see "India: Judicially Independent" entry below) effectively came to an end once it was clear that the Kesavanand Bharati basic structure doctrine, handed down by the Court in 1973, would not be overturned.

The Prime Minister at the time, Indira Gandhi, placed the government under emergency rule two different times, and during the second emergency — now known as the Emergency — civil rights were trampled. Indira Gandhi's government emerged from the Emergency very unpopular.

The government was never able to muster the strength to pass legislation to erase the basic structure doctrine. The Supreme Court with its new strength and legitimacy even upheld a lower court's ruling setting aside Ms. Gandhi's election during the Emergency.

Perhaps surprising, especially when considering the fights that formerly took place between the government and the Court, India's activist judiciary currently receives little criticism or complaint about the legislative powers it exercises through PILs. Early this summer, the Indian Supreme Court issued a directive outlawing the hazing — called "ragging" in India — that senior students inflict upon junior students in Indian universities. Nothing more than murmurs uttered in hidden corners of editorial pages were heard about this legislative action.

At least one commentator, S.P. Sathe, 6 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 29, claims that the Indian people and even state and central governments and other governmental bodies believe that the courts are better arbiters between competing interests than are politicians. In a country infected by political corruption all the way from the central government down to village councils, this sounds like a fair claim. All in all, PILs are highly regarded and well accepted as part of Indian life, even if PILs provide the ways and means for the judiciary to usurp power from the legislature and even the executive.