The Judiciary

Lok Adalats are an alternative dispute-resolution mechanism designed to settle suitable disputes through compromise and a simpler procedure. They can reduce the time, expense and procedural complexity often associated with formal litigation, improving access to justice. Thus, option A is correct. They do not undermine constitutional supremacy, remove Fundamental Rights, or abolish the ordinary hierarchy of courts.

Free legal aid rests on the constitutional commitment to equal justice and meaningful access to courts. A person who cannot afford a lawyer should not lose the practical ability to defend rights merely because of poverty. Option A captures this principle. Options B, C and D promote exclusion and directly contradict equality, social justice and fair access to legal remedies.

Open courts support the principle that justice should be administered transparently and should be capable of public scrutiny, subject to lawful exceptions. Observing hearings can strengthen confidence that parties are treated fairly and that decisions are not made secretly. Option A is correct. B, C and D reduce transparency and therefore weaken, rather than strengthen, judicial legitimacy.