In order to file a PIL, the petitioner does not need to have a personal interest in the matter. However, they must be a public-spirited person and have sufficient knowledge of the matter.

The violation of a statutory provision is not a ground for the maintainability of a PIL. However, the matter must be of public importance, affect a large number of people, or be a violation of fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court held that a PIL was maintainable in all of the above cases. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Court held that a PIL was maintainable to protect the rights of slum dwellers. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, the Court held that a PIL was maintainable to challenge the constitutional validity of a law. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, the Court held that a PIL was maintainable to protect the rights of bonded laborers.

The Supreme Court held that a PIL was maintainable in all of the above cases. In L.K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that a PIL was maintainable to challenge the constitutional validity of a law. In Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, the Court held that a PIL was maintainable to challenge the constitutional validity of a law. In Common Cause v. Union of India, the Court held that a PIL was maintainable to protect the rights of consumers.

The Supreme Court does not consider the locus standi of the petitioner when determining the maintainability of a PIL. However, it does consider the nature of the matter, the public interest involved, and the availability of alternative remedies.