Search cases

In re: Toll collection at Nattika plaza on NH-66

Former MP T.N. Prathapan filed a public interest litigation in the Kerala High Court challenging the commencement of toll collection at the Nattika plaza on NH-66, alleging incomplete construction and certification discrepancies. As of 14 October 2026, the court refused to grant a temporary stay on toll collection and directed the National Highways Authority of India to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the deferment of fees until construction work is completed.

In re: Mandatory biometric Aadhaar authentication for LPG subsidy

A public interest litigation (PIL) filed before the Delhi High Court challenges the government's mandate requiring biometric Aadhaar authentication for LPG refills. The petitioner contends that this requirement creates significant hardship for individuals with visual impairments and disabilities, while also questioning the lack of statutory backing for the mandate.

In re: Regulation of analogue paneer sales

A public interest litigation in the Delhi High Court seeks a crackdown on the sale of non-dairy food products marketed as paneer. On 14 October 2026, a bench including Acting Chief Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma directed the Centre, the FSSAI, and the Delhi government to file their responses to the petition within six weeks.

In re: COVID-19 ex-gratia compensation claims

The Patna High Court ruled that applications for ex-gratia compensation following COVID-19 deaths cannot be denied solely due to clerical errors in hospital records or the use of reports from unauthorized laboratories. The court emphasized that the state should not adopt a hyper-technical approach to denying welfare relief for human suffering.

Rajat Sharma vs Union of India — Deepfake regulation PIL

Journalist Rajat Sharma filed a public interest litigation in the Delhi High Court seeking to regulate deepfake technology and block platforms hosting unauthorized content. On 15 September 2026, the Delhi High Court delivered a judgment in his favor, protecting his personality rights and directing the removal of deepfake videos featuring him.

Public Interest Litigation regarding PM-CARES Fund transparency

A public interest litigation was filed in the Delhi High Court seeking to mandate that the PM-CARES Fund disclose details regarding its receipts and expenditures online. The fund released its audited financial statements for the 2024-25 financial year as reported on 19 August 2026, disclosing a total corpus of Rs 8,452 crore and an expenditure of Rs 88 lakh. The petition was pending before the court as of 19 August 2026.

Ved Vignan Maha Vidya Peeth Trust v. State of Karnataka & Ors. — Land encroachment allegation challenge

A writ petition challenging a government order constituting a Special Investigation Team to probe alleged land encroachment by a trust linked to the Art of Living Foundation in Bengaluru South Taluk. The Karnataka High Court granted an interim stay of the SIT probe.

Stray dog management and liability

The Supreme Court ruled on 19 May 2026 that the right to feed or protect stray dogs is inseparable from the responsibility for public safety, emphasizing potential tortious liability for dog bites. Following this judgment, the Delhi High Court initiated a suo motu public interest litigation on 22 July 2026 to monitor compliance with the Supreme Court's directions regarding stray dog management. Authorities subsequently began construction of a large-capacity shelter in Dwarka for aggressive stray dogs, as reported on 28 July 2026.

Public Interest Litigation in Jharkhand High Court — Challenge to NHRC circular on custodial death inquiry

A public interest litigation challenged an NHRC circular that withdrew mandatory judicial inquiries into custodial deaths, disappearances, and rape cases. On 25 July 2026, a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court ruled that a mandatory judicial inquiry must be conducted under Section 196(2) of the BNSS for such allegations.

Public Interest Litigation seeking restoration of Satluj on ZEE5

A public interest litigation was filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking the restoration of the film Satluj on ZEE5 after its removal 48 hours following its release. The High Court refused to hear the petition, and the matter was closed after the petitioner withdrew the plea on 17 July 2026.

Plea against Delhi Police officials regarding the Tis Hazari Court clash

A public interest litigation was filed before the Delhi High Court seeking action against police officials for protesting and making social media statements following a clash between lawyers and police at the Tis Hazari Court. The High Court rejected a request from the Ministry of Home Affairs on 6 November 2019 regarding an order against coercive action. The case is closed following the acquittal of the involved lawyers, a decision upheld by the High Court on 7 May 2026.

In re: Stray dog menace in Meghalaya

The Meghalaya High Court is hearing a Public Interest Litigation concerning the management of stray dogs in the state. Following directives to form a committee under the Animal Birth Control Rules and acquire shelters, the court mandated on 5 September 2025 that stray dogs be captured, vaccinated, and kept under observation. The High Court previously sought permission from the Supreme Court to retain jurisdiction over the matter as reported on 1 September 2025.

Vivek Firoda vs The Rajasthan High Court

A PIL filed by an advocate seeking a directive for the Rajasthan High Court to broadcast case information via WhatsApp to improve transparency and court functioning.

Girish Bharadwaj vs Union of India — INDIA alliance name challenge

The public interest litigation filed by Girish Bharadwaj challenged the legality of the opposition alliance using the acronym 'INDIA'. On 12 August 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition after finding no merit in the challenge. The matter reached a final resolution with the court disposing of the case on 12 August 2025.

Kannan Swaminathan vs Union of India

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Kannan Swaminathan, observing that the petition lacked any element of public interest. The court imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner.

Justice for Rights Foundation vs Union of India

The Justice for Rights Foundation filed a public interest litigation before the Delhi High Court seeking the regulation of content on online streaming platforms to address allegedly vulgar and sexually explicit material. On 22 April 2024, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition after noting the implementation of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules.

Public Interest Litigation challenging the Maharashtra Government's declaration of a public holiday for Ram Mandir Pran Pratishtha

The Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation that challenged the Maharashtra State Government's decision to declare January 22nd as a public holiday. The petitioner argued that the notification violated the principles of secularism.

Petitioner vs Union of India — PIL seeking replacement of 'Central Government' with 'Union Government'

A public interest litigation was filed seeking a directive to replace the term 'Central Government' with 'Union Government' in all official communications, arguing that the current terminology impacts the federal structure of the Constitution. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, observing that the use of the term does not violate the fundamental structure of the Constitution.

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India — Challenge to empanelment of government advocates

A public interest litigation was filed challenging the procedure adopted by the Union Government for the empanelment of advocates to represent it before various courts. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, terming it a 'publicity interest litigation' and noting that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality in the process.

Challenge to the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner

A petition challenged the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner, alleging that it violated Supreme Court guidelines established in the Prakash Singh case. Following the dismissal of these petitions by the Delhi High Court on 12 October 2021, the Supreme Court disposed of the matter on 27 February 2023, noting that Asthana's tenure had concluded.