The Judiciary

Public Interest Litigation, or PIL, is intended to secure relief where a genuine public wrong affects people who may not be able to approach the court themselves. If a petition is filed mainly for private gain, publicity, rivalry, or publicity-driven purposes, it can consume hearing time and judicial attention. Therefore, option A is correct; the other options incorrectly describe misuse as beneficial or automatic.

Subordinate courts handle a large volume of civil and criminal cases, so consistent procedure and professional discipline are essential. High Courts supervise them through administrative control and judicial oversight, helping correct procedural errors and maintain standards. Option A is therefore correct. Supervision does not turn courts into Parliament, eliminate hearings, or make law unnecessary, as the other options wrongly suggest.

An open court system generally permits the public and the press to observe proceedings, subject to legally justified exceptions. Public visibility makes judicial conduct more transparent and helps people assess whether hearings are fair and independent. This strengthens institutional legitimacy and trust, so option A is correct. Secret hearings, exclusion of the public, and unexplained decisions would weaken accountability rather than support it.

A reasoned judgment explains how the court understood the relevant law, assessed the evidence, and moved from facts to the final conclusion. This makes the decision open to scrutiny by the parties, appellate courts, and the wider public. Option A is therefore correct. Secrecy, freedom from evidence, or conversion of a court into an electoral body would undermine, not strengthen, judicial accountability.

Natural justice requires both an unbiased adjudicator and a fair opportunity for each affected party to present its case. Impartiality prevents personal interest or prejudice from controlling the result, while a hearing helps the decision-maker test facts and respond to opposing claims. Option A is correct because the safeguards work together. They do not remove evidence, end law, or favour only one side.

Judicial reasoning combines factual findings with legal standards. Evidence helps the court determine what happened, while statutes, constitutional provisions, and legal principles indicate how those established facts should be evaluated. The conclusion must therefore be supported by both proof and law, making option A correct. Evidence does not abolish law, and law does not normally make factual proof unnecessary.

The basic structure doctrine accepts that Parliament may amend the Constitution, but it places a substantive limit on that power. An amendment cannot destroy the Constitution’s essential identity or basic features, such as constitutional supremacy, democracy, rule of law and judicial review. The judiciary examines whether an amendment crosses this boundary. Thus the doctrine strengthens constitutional protection; it does not grant unlimited power, executive control, or abolition of rights. Option A is correct.

Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, and the right to approach the Supreme Court under it is itself constitutionally protected. Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs not only for Fundamental Rights but also for other legal rights. Therefore Article 226 has a wider subject-matter scope, although its exercise is subject to established judicial principles. Option A states the essential distinction.

Judicial independence protects decision-making from political or personal pressure, while accountability requires lawful conduct, reasoned decisions, ethical standards and appropriate institutional scrutiny. If independence is absent, rights may be denied through interference; if accountability is absent, unchecked power can damage legitimacy and trust. Constitutional democracy therefore seeks a balance: safeguards must protect impartial adjudication without creating immunity from lawful responsibility. Option A captures this balance.

Judicial activism refers to an energetic judicial approach in interpreting and enforcing constitutional or legal rights, especially where ordinary remedies are inadequate. It can legitimately protect public interest when courts act within constitutional authority, rely on legal principles and provide effective remedies. It becomes problematic if courts permanently replace the legislature or executive and begin performing their policy functions. Thus constitutional limits and separation of powers support option A.

The Constitution distributes public functions among the legislature, executive and judiciary, while requiring each institution to respect constitutional limits. Judicial review can invalidate unconstitutional action, but judicial overreach is criticised when courts move beyond adjudication and effectively make policy or perform another branch’s assigned function without sufficient legal basis. The concern is therefore separation of powers and institutional competence, not opposition to all rights protection. Option A is correct.

Public Interest Litigation relaxed the traditional rule that generally required the directly injured person to approach the court. In appropriate cases, a public-spirited person or organisation may raise an issue on behalf of people who cannot effectively do so themselves. Option A is correct. B describes the older restrictive approach, while C and D falsely deny the public and constitutional character of PIL.

PIL is intended to address substantial public wrongs and give voice to disadvantaged groups. If a petition is filed mainly for private gain, publicity or political pressure, it can consume hearing time and administrative attention that should serve genuine public-interest matters. Therefore, option A is correct. B is an exaggerated benefit, while C and D contradict the likely effect of misuse.

A reasoned judgment states the legal rules, relevant evidence and logical steps supporting the result. This enables the parties, appellate courts and the public to examine whether the decision follows law rather than personal preference. Option A is correct. Secrecy, freedom from evidence, and conversion into an elected body would undermine judicial accountability instead of improving it.

Natural justice requires both an unbiased decision-maker and a fair opportunity for each side to present its case. The first protects against prejudgment or conflict of interest; the second helps the authority hear relevant facts and responses before deciding. Together they make procedure credible and fair, so A is correct. B, C and D misrepresent these safeguards as one-sided or law-destroying.