“Who will protect the rights of the common man if the executive does not do its duty?” the query from a Bench, led by Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan, set the tone for Wednesday’s hearing, which turned out to be a decider on the fate of PILs, post a scathing order by its own two-member Bench in December 2007.

The two-judge Bench had criticised high court judges of “judicial intervention into executive domain” by entertaining PILs.

In a clear signal that PILs are indeed welcome, the Bench sought the aid of senior advocate Fali S Nariman and the body of Supreme Court lawyers to frame new guidelines.

Highlighting the public interest aspects in PILs, the Bench referred primarily to the one dealing with poor patients denied treatment by hospitals allotted government land on the promise to reserve 30 per cent free beds.

The court also highlighted the need for judiciary to take up the issue of free education to poor children by schools functioning on land received at concessional rates.

Both PILs, once heard by the Delhi High Court, were cited as instances of “judicial overreach” by the two-judge Bench of Justices Markendeya Katju and A K Mathur.

In this context, the court recalled the judiciary’s role in bringing to reality the prospect of a public transport system fuelled by CNG in the Capital.

Its remarks came while hearing two PILs dealing with issues related to rehabilitation of sex workers and provision of facilities to disabled persons.

The court dismissed submissions by Additional Solicitor General Vikas Singh that there was substance in the two-judge Bench’s observations on judicial overreach. Refusing to form a Constitution Bench to hear the issue of PILs, the Bench said the issue relating to laying down of guidelines for PILs would be taken up in August.