The Judiciary (Supreme Court, High Courts, and judicial independence)

The judiciary protects rights through constitutional interpretation, judicial review, and remedies. When an act, order, or omission by the state violates a Fundamental Right, a court may examine legality and grant suitable relief, such as setting aside the unlawful action or issuing an appropriate writ. Option A describes this core rights-protection function. The other choices concern routine market administration, sports selection, or scientific forecasting, none of which represents the judiciary's constitutional role in protecting Fundamental Rights. Courts may decide legal disputes involving many subjects, but their special relevance here is checking public power against the Constitution and providing relief to the affected person.

Courts and human-rights commissions can both contribute to protection, but their legal roles are not identical. A court hears cases under its jurisdiction and may issue binding legal orders or remedies according to law. A commission generally receives or examines complaints, conducts inquiries, seeks information and makes recommendations within its statutory powers; its recommendation is not automatically the same as a judicial decree. Option A expresses this practical distinction. Option B is false because a commission is not universally superior to a court. Option C ignores the important role of courts in enforcing rights, and Option D is plainly unrelated to their constitutional and legal functions.

The governing concept is institutional protection through lawful remedies. Human Rights Commissions and courts are formal bodies with procedures for receiving complaints, examining evidence, hearing affected parties and directing appropriate relief or action. Option A is correct because it uses recognized public institutions rather than private retaliation. A complaint can bring an alleged violation to official attention, while a court petition may seek enforcement of legal or constitutional protections. Options B, C and D do not provide impartial review or remedy: revenge bypasses law, silencing suppresses the victim, and calling injustice private avoids public accountability.

Judicial independence means that courts can decide cases according to the Constitution and law without improper pressure from the government, powerful groups, or public officials. This is important when the alleged violator is itself a state authority. An independent court can examine evidence, hear the affected person, declare unlawful action invalid, and order an appropriate remedy. Thus option A correctly explains how courts protect human rights. Option B confuses judicial review with obedience to government; option C reverses the role of courts, which provide a forum for complaints; and option D is false because protection of rights is a central judicial function.

Public Interest Litigation, or PIL, is a judicial mechanism through which a concerned person or organisation may bring an issue affecting the public or a disadvantaged group before a court. It is important because poor, vulnerable, or marginalised people may lack money, knowledge, or practical ability to file an individual case. A court can examine systemic violations and issue directions to public authorities. Option B is correct because it describes improved access to justice for rights protection. PIL does not replace courts, abolish institutions, remove constitutional rights, or remain limited to private property disputes, so A, C, and D are incorrect.