A look at PILs that didn’t pass judicial muster — from ambitious causes to curious claims, this compilation highlights where the courts drew the line.
A PIL had sought to block sales of Arundhati Roy’s memoir Mother Mary Comes to Me unless its cover (featuring the author smoking) carried a statutory health warning. The Kerala HC dismissed the plea.
The court noted that the publisher had already placed a disclaimer that the imagery was “for representational purposes only” and held that invoking constitutional jurisdiction was overreach. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji dismissed the petition, observing:
Public interest litigation cannot be used as a tool for self-publicity or personal motives.
The Petitioner – advocate Rajasimhan argued that the cover amounted to an “indirect advertisement” of tobacco products without the mandatory health warning.
Court also noted that the book already includes a disclaimer stating:
Any depiction of smoking in this book is for representational purposes only. Penguin Random House India does not promote or endorse tobacco use.
A PIL demanding a CBI investigation into alleged deaths caused by contaminated cough syrup in Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthanwas turned away by the Supreme Court.
The petitioners contended that contamination in a drug (ColdRif) caused mass casualties. But the bench held that state agencies were already acting, and it was not the Court’s role to commandeer a probe.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was waiting for another matter, intervened and said that though he did not represent any States, “we must trust the States”.
As per reports, an FIR has also been lodged against Coldrif’s manufacturer, Sresan Pharmaceuticals, located in Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu, under Sections 105 and 276 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 27A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
On October 13, 2025, a petition seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into alleged electoral roll tampering raised by Rahul Gandhi was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Petitioner’s counsel argued that their representation to the Election Commission of India has neither been considered nor any action has been taken. Dismissing the petition, bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi ordered:
“We have heard the petitioner’s counsel. We are not inclined to entertain the petition, which is purportedly filed in public interest. The petitioner may pursue before ECI, if so advised.
On September 24, 2025, a PIL seeking a new legislative framework to “protect husbands” from alleged false cases by estranged wives was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court.
The court found the petition “cursory,” based largely on media reports, and held that it did not meet the standards for public interest litigation.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra dismissed the PIL filed by Chandrama Vishvakarma, said:
Except for reference to certain news items, wholly cursory averments have been made in the petition seeking relief. No case is made out in the petition for entertaining it as public interest litigation.
A petition asking the state government to maintain the implementation of NEP 2020 (National Education Policy) was dismissed by the Karnataka High Court.
The court held that it would not interfere in policy decisions unless a violation of fundamental or statutory rights is shown.
It would not be appropriate for the court to exercise its power under Article 226 … unless it is established … that fundamental rights or statutory rights are violated.
Supreme Court rejects PIL seeking SIT probe into “vote chori” claims
On October 13, 2025, a petition seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into alleged electoral roll tampering raised by Rahul Gandhi was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Petitioner’s counsel argued that their representation to the Election Commission of India has neither been considered nor any action has been taken. Dismissing the petition, bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi ordered:
“We have heard the petitioner’s counsel. We are not inclined to entertain the petition, which is purportedly filed in public interest. The petitioner may pursue before ECI, if so advised.
Kerala High Court dismisses PIL against Arundhati Roy’s book cover
A PIL had sought to block sales of Arundhati Roy’s memoir Mother Mary Comes to Me unless its cover (featuring the author smoking) carried a statutory health warning. The Kerala HC dismissed the plea.
The court noted that the publisher had already placed a disclaimer that the imagery was “for representational purposes only” and held that invoking constitutional jurisdiction was overreach. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji dismissed the petition, observing:
Public interest litigation cannot be used as a tool for self-publicity or personal motives.
The Petitioner – advocate Rajasimhan argued that the cover amounted to an “indirect advertisement” of tobacco products without the mandatory health warning.
Court also noted that the book already includes a disclaimer stating:
Any depiction of smoking in this book is for representational purposes only. Penguin Random House India does not promote or endorse tobacco use.
Supreme Court dismisses PIL for CBI probe into deaths of 21 children from toxic cough syrup
A PIL demanding a CBI investigation into alleged deaths caused by contaminated cough syrup in Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthanwas turned away by the Supreme Court.
The petitioners contended that contamination in a drug (ColdRif) caused mass casualties. But the bench held that state agencies were already acting, and it was not the Court’s role to commandeer a probe.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was waiting for another matter, intervened and said that though he did not represent any States, “we must trust the States”.
As per reports, an FIR has also been lodged against Coldrif’s manufacturer, Sresan Pharmaceuticals, located in Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu, under Sections 105 and 276 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 27A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Allahabad High Court dismisses PIL seeking a law to shield husbands from persecution
On September 24, 2025, a PIL seeking a new legislative framework to “protect husbands” from alleged false cases by estranged wives was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court.
The court found the petition “cursory,” based largely on media reports, and held that it did not meet the standards for public interest litigation.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra dismissed the PIL filed by Chandrama Vishvakarma, said:
Except for reference to certain news items, wholly cursory averments have been made in the petition seeking relief. No case is made out in the petition for entertaining it as public interest litigation.
Karnataka High Court rejects PIL seeking continuation of NEP 2020
A petition asking the state government to maintain the implementation of NEP 2020 (National Education Policy) was dismissed by the Karnataka High Court.
The court held that it would not interfere in policy decisions unless a violation of fundamental or statutory rights is shown.
It would not be appropriate for the court to exercise its power under Article 226 … unless it is established … that fundamental rights or statutory rights are violated.