The Author, Purnima Rathi, is a 4th-year student at Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
Featured Image: EStartIndia
The use of Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) has become a regular feature of Indian Constitutional Law, no longer restricted to rare or exceptional cases. What started as a procedural law in the late 1970s transformed into a powerful instrument for enforcing constitutional rights and holding authorities accountable. The Supreme Court (‘SC’) has heard matters ranging from playing the national anthem at the beginning of a movie, ragging in colleges, to preventing industrial pollution and banning fireworks. Among the many remedies that the SC has developed through PILs, one of the most significant is the structural injunction, also referred to as the writ of continuing mandamus. This remedy allows the Court to issue ongoing directions over a period of time, especially in situations where immediate or one-time relief is insufficient to address deep-rooted institutional failures.
Contemporary Relevance:
Recently, the role of structural injunctions has only become more prominent, as the SC continues to respond to public demands for transparency, accountability, and effective governance. The Court has used continuing mandamus to step in where the executive is either unwilling or unable to act. Even in matters like the migrant workers’ crisis during the COVID-19 pandemic, or the management of manual scavenging and pollution control, courts have been seen to use a hands-on, ongoing monitoring approach and not giving a one-time final verdict. While this has helped in achieving certain outcomes, it has also raised concerns about institutional balance, delays in final disposal of cases, and lack of enforceability in the long term. Understanding the continued and growing relevance of structural injunctions helps us place the 2G and Coalgate cases in a larger context, where the courts are not just adjudicating disputes but also actively shaping public administration.
Judicial Pronouncements:
To understand structural injunctions in both their development and their application by the Indian courts, key cases where the courts granted such relief have been highlighted. These case law highlights the expansion of the remedy and the intention of the Supreme Court to engage in more “ongoing” oversight over actions of the executive.
Recognized as one of the earliest PIL cases, where the court addressed the prolonged detention of undertrials. Instead of disposing of the case immediately, the Court passed a series of interim orders. This marked the beginning of the structural injunction approach, even though it was not formally termed as such then.
The Court issued ongoing directions to improve the living and working conditions of bonded labourers. It expanded Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity and used the continuing mandamus approach to ensure compliance over time.
Building upon the jurisprudence of the 1980s, the Court in the 1990s began to institutionalize structural injunctions in matters of public accountability.
This was a landmark case where the court used the writ of continuing mandamus to monitor investigations into high-level corruption involving politicians and bureaucrats. The Court insulated the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) from executive influence and laid down procedural safeguards, making structural injunctions more formalised and governance-focused.
The Supreme Court monitored the CBI investigation, issued weekly directions, and cancelled 122 telecom licences granted by the UPA government. The Court justified its intervention by citing Article 14 but provided minimal reasoning in its orders, which raised concerns on procedural fairness and judicial overreach.
The role of structural injunctions became even more prominent in the 2000s, especially in corruption-related PILs where the Court assumed an unprecedented supervisory role.
The court assumed an active supervisory role, even deciding who could be on the CBI team. It ordered that officers couldn’t be transferred without the Court’s approval and appointed special prosecutors. Despite being framed as judicial monitoring, this was seen as excessive control.
- Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference 1 of 2012[1]
A five-judge bench clarified that auctions were not the only method for allocating natural resources. This effectively watered down the reasoning from the 2G judgment. The Reference exposed how earlier decisions lacked strong legal reasoning and were driven more by public perception.
These cases together illustrate a shift in the judiciary’s role from a traditional role of passive adjudication to active supervision. Nevertheless, this shift has raised some significant debates around the appropriate limits of judicial power, which we address in the subsequent analysis.
Critical Analysis
- How has the use of structural injunctions evolved in PIL cases and what is the current role of the Supreme Court in this regard?
The shift in the Supreme Court’s role after the Emergency marked a clear turning point in the Indian legal system. The failure of the judiciary in ADM Jabalpur damaged its legitimacy, and in the years that followed, the Court made conscious efforts to rebuild that trust. This led to a more flexible interpretation of Article 21 and a new procedural innovation that came to be known as Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’). Judges like Justice Bhagwati openly stated that procedure should not defeat the cause of justice. This laid the foundation for the court to hear letters, postcards, and pleas from citizens or social activists on behalf of affected communities.
The early phase of PILs saw the Court dealing with cases involving prisoners, bonded labourers, and undertrial detainees. In these cases, the Court passed a series of interim orders instead of disposing of the case quickly. This strategy helped the judiciary maintain control over the implementation process. Over time, this approach evolved into what is now called the writ of continuing mandamus.
This form of intervention allowed the Court to move from being just an adjudicator to also becoming an enforcer of rights. The shift was not only in subject matter but also in how the Court engaged with executive bodies. Fact-finding commissions, expert bodies, and amicus curiae became standard features of PILs, helping the Court go beyond individual remedies and push for systemic reforms.
- Did structural injunctions used in 2G Spectrum and Coalgate Case lead to Judicial Overreach?
The 2G Spectrum and Coalgate cases reflect two of the most significant instances where the Supreme Court applied the writ of continuing mandamus to monitor corruption investigations. In both matters, the allegations were serious and politically sensitive — involving ministers, bureaucrats, and large business houses. In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India , the Court cancelled 122 telecom licenses on the grounds of arbitrariness and lack of transparency under Article 14. Similarly, in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secy ., the Court quashed coal block allocations, claiming they were non-transparent and illegal.
But the court’s role went far beyond issuing declaratory relief. It began to directly monitor the investigation process. In both cases, the court regularly heard the matter, demanded sealed status reports from the CBI, appointed special prosecutors, and even approved or rejected investigating officers and legal counsel. While this was framed as judicial supervision, in reality, it became direct control over investigative agencies. The Court justified this intervention by pointing to institutional failure — especially the lack of action by the executive and interference in CBI functioning.
However, such control had serious implications. It led to delays in trials, increased judicial workload, and created a parallel administrative process within the Court. The orders were brief and often lacked legal reasoning, which made it difficult to challenge or review them. Critics, including a Parliamentary Standing Committee, described this as a “colourable exercise of power” that threatened the principle of separation of powers.
- Will the use of structural injunction affect balance between the judiciary and the executive in India?
The Supreme Court’s use of structural injunctions has shifted its role from being an adjudicator to what some describe as an institutional overseer. This shift is seen clearly in cases like 2G and Coalgate, where the Court did not just supervise investigations, it selected prosecutors, approved investigation officers, and monitored strategy. This is no longer judicial review; it borders on administrative control.
This transformation is not limited to corruption cases. In PILs related to food distribution, environmental regulation, and mining, the court has taken similar steps, issuing ongoing orders, monitoring implementation, and even threatening contempt when there’s non-compliance. These functions usually belong to the executive, not the judiciary. This trend raises concerns about the Court exercising “postcolonial governance,” often without institutional restraint.
The friction is not just theoretical. The Comptroller and Auditor General (‘CAG’) and even former CBI officials have pointed out the difficulties that arise when the Court intervenes too deeply into executive functioning. These are not just isolated incidents, they reflect a pattern of institutional conflict, often justified under the idea of “institutional failure.”
The real question is whether this is a temporary phase or a permanent shift in how constitutional power is distributed. Some justify the Court’s activism as necessary when the executive fails to act. But that justification risks turning into a habit. In contrast, the U.S. and South African courts have used structural injunctions more cautiously, often relying on consent decrees and time-bound orders with clearer judicial-executive boundaries.
Conclusion
The structural injunction, developed through PIL, has redefined the judiciary’s role in India. From protecting fundamental rights in post-Emergency cases to overseeing investigations in large-scale corruption matters like 2G and Coalgate, the Court has shifted from an adjudicator to an active institutional participant. While this approach has helped in addressing executive failure, it raises serious concerns about transparency, reasoning, and constitutional balance.
[1] (2012) 10 SCC 1.
Leave a Reply