Public law and public interest litigation

Public law disputes test the validity of State action against the Constitution and the statute under which the State acted. They are brought as writ petitions, and a public interest petition is the same remedy used by someone who is not personally affected.

Writ jurisdiction

Article 32 gives a person the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of a fundamental right, and the right to move is itself a fundamental right. Article 226 is wider. A High Court may issue writs, directions or orders to any person or authority, including the Government, within its territorial jurisdiction, for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. The High Court of Karnataka exercises that power for the State of Karnataka. The writs are habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto, and the Court may mould the relief to the case.

A respondent that is the State or an authority under Article 12 is amenable to the writ. Bodies that are not the State may also be answerable where they perform a public function, but a purely contractual or private dispute is ordinarily outside the writ.

Maintainability

Maintainability is usually the first contest. The recurring objections are these. An effective alternative remedy exists, such as a statutory appeal or a tribunal, and the High Court will ordinarily send the petitioner there, subject to settled exceptions such as breach of natural justice, absence of jurisdiction or a challenge to the vires of a law. The facts are in serious dispute, which a writ court is ill suited to resolve. The petition is delayed: no fixed limitation applies, but delay and laches can defeat relief, particularly where third parties have acted on the order. The petitioner has suppressed material facts. And the dispute is a pure contract dispute with no public law element.

An order of a single Judge in a writ petition is carried to a Division Bench in writ appeal, and a decision of the High Court may be taken to the Supreme Court by special leave under Article 136.

Public interest litigation

Public interest litigation relaxes the usual rule that only the person whose right is affected may sue. A person or organisation may approach the Court for those who cannot, because they are poor, unlettered or otherwise unable. The Court expects the petitioner to act in good faith and for a public cause, and it has declined petitions brought for private gain, publicity or a personal or political grievance. It may require the petitioner to disclose credentials, may impose costs on a petition it finds frivolous, and may appoint a commission or amicus curiae to report on facts.

For a respondent, the questions are whether the petitioner has standing in substance, whether the relief asks the Court to legislate or to administer rather than to enforce a legal duty, and whether the matter is better left to the executive or a statutory body. For a petitioner, the petition must rest on identified legal duties and verifiable facts, not on generalised grievance.

Environmental and natural resource writs

The right to a healthy environment has been read into Article 21 and is supported by Article 48A and the duty in Article 51A(g). The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 created the National Green Tribunal for civil cases that involve a substantial question relating to the environment and arise under the laws listed in the Act, and appeals from it lie to the Supreme Court. The High Courts retain their writ jurisdiction under Article 226, so the choice between the two forums depends on the statute invoked and the relief sought.

Sand is a minor mineral under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the power to regulate minor minerals rests with the State. Section 4 bars mining operations without the required licence or lease. Section 15 empowers the State Government to make rules for minor minerals, and section 23C empowers it to make rules to prevent illegal mining, transportation and storage. Karnataka's rules under those powers govern grant of permits, transport and monitoring. Environmental clearance under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 is a separate requirement, and sand mining is also subject to guidelines the Union environment ministry has issued. Petitions in this area typically question the process by which a lease or permit was granted, the adequacy of the environmental assessment, or the State's enforcement against illegal extraction.

Infrastructure and land

Challenges to public works commonly raise the process of approval rather than the merits of the project: whether the statutory consultation was held, whether the land was acquired under the correct statute, whether compensation and rehabilitation obligations under the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 were met, and whether a public tender followed its own conditions. Writs on land acquisition and project approvals are also covered in the practice on projects and land. Courts show restraint in reviewing technical and policy choices, and examine whether the decision-making process was lawful, fair and reasoned.

Online platforms as a public law question

A law or order that restricts online content is tested against Article 19(1)(a) and the reasonable restrictions permitted by Article 19(2). In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) the Supreme Court struck down section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, upheld the blocking power in section 69A with its procedural safeguards, and read down the knowledge standard for intermediaries in section 79. Blocking directions, the intermediary duties in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and later amendments are tested through writ petitions on grounds of competence of the rule-maker, proportionality and procedural fairness. The same questions arise for the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. A platform challenging an order and a user challenging a block are both entitled to ask whether the order disclosed reasons and followed the procedure the rules prescribe.