ON APRIL 8, 2026, while arguing before the nine-judge Bench in the Sabrimala reference, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the Supreme Court to remove Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) as a concept altogether. Questioning the relevance of such petitions, he asked, “In this day and age, why should such PILs be entertained?” According to the Centre, many PILs now being filed were motivated and at the behest of undisclosed interests.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant responded saying that the courts were cautious. That same day, Justice B.V. Nagarathna observed that the petition challenging the temple entry practice should not have been fit to be entertained in the first place as no genuine devotee, according to her, would have challenged such a practice.
“Public Interest Litigation has now become Private Interest Litigation, Publicity Interest Litigation, Paisa Interest Litigation and Political Interest Litigation,” Justice Nagarathna observed on May 5, adding that, “all are called PILs, but we entertain only real and genuine PILs”
