Right to Constitutional RemediesExpanding scope of rights

The governing concept is Public Interest Litigation, or PIL. It allows a public-spirited person or organisation to approach a court when a vulnerable or disadvantaged group may be unable to do so effectively itself. The purpose is not personal profit; it is to seek enforcement of rights and accountability in a matter affecting the public or a section of it. Therefore, option A is correct because the social worker’s action can widen access to justice and make Fundamental Rights practically enforceable for the deprived community. Option B changes the purpose to private gain, option C contradicts access to justice, and option D treats rights as merely theoretical. Courts still examine whether the petition genuinely serves public interest.

The governing concept is purposive and broad constitutional interpretation that strengthens the practical protection of rights. The right to life is not sensibly limited to biological survival; courts may understand it as including conditions necessary for a life with dignity, subject to constitutional reasoning and legal limits. Option A is therefore the best example of rights expansion. Option B reduces protection rather than expanding it. Option C is overbroad because not every private preference creates a constitutional claim, and option D rejects the Constitution itself instead of interpreting it. The key exam clue is that an existing right receives a richer, rights-protective meaning in response to human needs and changing circumstances.