Collective legal action, where groups of persons affected by a similar legal issue seek redress in a single proceeding, is an important facet of modern litigation. Globally, this mechanism has taken many forms, with class action suits particularly associated with the United States. India, though not possessing a formal class action regime identical to those in some common law jurisdictions, has long recognised mechanisms for collective litigation through representative suits and, more recently, statutory provisions in various laws.

This article traces the historical evolution of class action and representative suits in India, from early procedural rules in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) to the development of collective actions under modern statutes, and the broader influence of judicial innovation such as Public Interest Litigation (PIL). It seeks to explain how these mechanisms emerged, how they differ, and their significance in Indian legal practice.

Representative Suits in the Code of Civil Procedure (1908)

The earliest form of collective action recognised in Indian law arises not from a specialised statute on class actions, but from a procedural provision in civil litigation. Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits a small number of individuals to represent a larger group in a suit where all persons share a common interest. Under this rule:

“One or more persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested.”

The principal purpose behind this provision was practical – to prevent multiplicity of suits and inconsistent judgments by allowing a representative party to litigate on behalf of many.^[i] While the CPC did not call this a “class action”, the substance is often akin to what other jurisdictions describe as a representative or class suit.

Representative suits under Order I, Rule 8 require that the litigants share a common interest or common grievance in the matter. As judicial interpretation has made clear, the presence of this common interest is essential to allow one person or a few to stand in for the many.^[ii] This has enabled civil courts to deal with disputes involving groups of persons affected by the same rights or claims, without forcing each claimant to institute a separate proceeding. Although rooted in colonial-era procedural law, this rule remained India’s primary statutory mechanism for collective civil litigation for much of the twentieth century. Its application has been seen in diverse contexts, from property disputes where multiple villagers share rights, to broader public matters asserted by representative plaintiffs.^[iii]

Judicial Expansion: Representative Suits Beyond Statistics

While Order I, Rule 8 provided a procedural route for collective litigation, its use was historically limited and cautious. Courts were wary of allowing representative suits where individual differences among class members were significant or where the interests of absent class members might not align perfectly with the representative.^[iv]

Nevertheless, judicial clarification helped shape the contours of representative suits. For example, Indian courts have emphasised that a representative suit under Rule 8 is appropriate where there is a single question of law or fact common to all members of the group, and where the representative plaintiff can adequately protect the interests of the entire class.^[v]

Over time, the judiciary’s willingness to apply Rule 8 in a flexible manner contributed to a broader perception of collective redress in Indian civil law. As one commentator has observed, this early form of representative litigation provided an institutional foundation upon which later collective action mechanisms could develop.^[vi]

Public Interest Litigation: A Transformative Innovation

A significant departure from statutory representative suits came through India’s judicial innovation of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Unlike representative suits under the CPC, PIL did not originate in legislation. Instead, it evolved through judicial interpretation of the Constitution, particularly Articles 32 and 226, which guarantee the right to approach the Supreme Court and high courts respectively for enforcement of fundamental rights.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Supreme Court began to permit petitions filed on behalf of disadvantaged or marginalised groups who could not themselves approach the courts.³ This expansion of locus standi, being the right to bring an action, was not a class action in the formal sense, but it permitted litigation to proceed where the rights of large groups were at issue.

PIL enabled causes such as environmental protection, prison conditions, and consumer welfare to be brought before courts on behalf of the public or a class of people, even if those individuals were not named in the petition. This development marked an important evolution in Indian collective litigation, giving voice to broad societal interests when individual recourse was impractical or unavailable.^[vii]

Unlike representative suits under the CPC, which focus on enforcing private rights, PILs frequently involve questions of public rights and duties, emphasising access to justice and societal welfare. This broadening of judicial activism contributed to collective redress evolving beyond the narrow confines of Order I, Rule 8.^[viii]

Statutory Recognition: Class Actions Under Modern Legislation

Despite the availability of representative suits and PIL, Indian law historically lacked a specific statutory framework for class actions in the modern sense, especially in the corporate context. This gap began to close with newer legislation in the twenty-first century.

Companies Act, 2013

One of the most significant statutory developments came with the Companies Act, 2013, which introduced Section 245 to allow class action suits against companies and their officers for oppression, mismanagement or conduct prejudicial to the interests of the company, its members or depositors. This section provides for a form of representative action whereby members, depositors, or any class of them, meeting certain numerical or shareholding thresholds, can file an application before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The application may seek relief including injunctions, damages, or removal of management.^[ix]

This statutory provision was a response to corporate governance challenges, particularly after scandals like the Satyam Computers fraud, which highlighted that shareholders previously lacked effective collective remedies under Indian law.^[x] The introduction of Section 245 thus represented a major expansion of collective redress mechanisms in the corporate sphere.

While Section 245’s procedural rules and thresholds were clarified only later through notifications and tribunal practice, its existence marks a clear statutory acknowledgment of class action-type litigation in India.^[xi]

Consumer Protection and Other Statutes

Legislative recognition of collective suits also extends to consumer law. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, representative complaints may be filed by one or more consumers on behalf of a larger group where they share a common interest, with procedural parallels to Order I, Rule 8. The 2019 Act explicitly permits such representative consumer actions, acknowledging the practical difficulty of numerous individuals bringing identical complaints separately.^[xii]

Similarly, provisions in other statutes, such as the Competition Act, 2002, allow collective representation of aggrieved persons before appropriate tribunals.^[xiii] These statutory avenues demonstrate that Indian law now contains multiple mechanisms through which group interests can be vindicated collectively, reflecting an evolution from purely procedural representative suits to targeted statutory collective actions tailored to specific subject areas.

Practical Distinctions and Contemporary Challenges

Although India has developed various pathways for collective litigation, there remain important practical distinctions compared with class action regimes in some other jurisdictions. One such distinction is that Indian representative suits and statutory class actions generally lean on an opt-in model, where individuals must take affirmative steps to join proceedings. For example, under Order I, Rule 8, courts may require adequate notice to potential class members, but membership is not automatic.^[xiv]

In contrast, class actions in jurisdictions like the United States often operate on an opt-out basis, with all affected individuals bound by a judgment unless they expressly decline participation. This difference affects the scope and impact of collective litigation in India and contributes to the relative rarity of such suits in practice. Practical challenges in India also include litigation costs, procedural complexity, and limited awareness among potential claimants. These considerations have sometimes led litigants to pursue alternative avenues, such as PIL or individual suits, even when collective action mechanisms theoretically exist.^[xv]

Nevertheless, recent developments, including statutory frameworks in sectors like corporate and consumer law, suggest a growing recognition of the utility of collective litigation for addressing widespread harms or systemic issues.

^[i] Practice Guides, Collective Redress & Class Actions 2025 – India, Chambers and Partners (2025) https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/collective-redress-class-actions-2025/india accessed 21 Dec 2025 (describing Order I, Rule 8 and representative suits).

^[ii] Ibid.

^[iii] Ibid.

^[iv] Ibid.

^[v] Ibid.

^[vi] Ibid.

^[vii] Global Legal Insights, Litigation & Dispute Resolution Laws 2025 | India (2025) https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/litigation-and-dispute-resolution-laws-and-regulations/india accessed 21 Dec 2025 (on PIL).

^[viii] (n 3)

^[ix] SCC Times, Section 245 – The Road Less Travelled (17 Oct 2024) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/10/17/section-245-the-road-less-travelled/  accessed 21 Dec 2025

^[x] Class Action Suits via NCLT Second Amendment Rules, TaxGuru (2019) https://taxguru.in/company-law/class-action-suits-via-nclt-second-amendment-rules-2019.html  accessed 21 Dec 2025

^[xi] (n 9)

^[xii] Mondaq, Explainer | How Class Action Suits Work in India (Dec 2025) https://www.mondaq.com/india/class-actions/1537976/explainer%7C-how-class-action-suits-work-in-india accessed 21 Dec 2025

^[xiii] Ibid.

^[xiv] (n 1)

^[xv] Srinath Sridharan & Sakate Khaitan, Class action lawsuits are unicorn-like (Livemint, 3 Jul 2024) https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online-views/class-action-lawsuits-are-unicorn-like-worthy-but-rare-11719940843913.html  accessed 21 Dec 2025