Public Interest Litigation in India is essential for the rule of law.

Question

Given below are two statements, one is labelled as Assertion (A) and the other as Reason (R).

Assertion (A): Public Interest Litigation in India is essential for the rule of law.

Reason (R): Public Interest Litigation provides effective access of Justice to socially and economically weaker sections.

Select the correct answer from the code given below:

1. A. Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)
2. B. (A) is false, but (R) is true
3. C. (A) is true, but (R) is false
4. D. Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A) (Correct answer)

Correct Answer

Option D — Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)

Detailed Solution & Explanation

The correct answer is Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

Key Points

• Assertion is true. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is essential for the rule of law, because it ensures that state action remains answerable to the Constitution even when the person harmed cannot approach the court.
• Reason is true. PIL relaxes the traditional rule of locus standi, allowing any public-spirited person to move the court on behalf of those who cannot — giving effective access to justice to the socially and economically weaker sections.
• (R) explains (A): it is *by* widening access to justice that PIL upholds the rule of law. Hence option (d).

Additional Information

• PIL in India was developed in the late 1970s and 1980s by Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer; the Supreme Court has even treated letters and postcards as writ petitions (epistolary jurisdiction).
• Its constitutional footing lies in Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts). Note that Article 226 is wider — a High Court can issue writs for Fundamental Rights *and* "for any other purpose".
• Landmark PILs: Hussainara Khatoon (undertrial prisoners), Bandhua Mukti Morcha (bonded labour), M. C. Mehta cases (environment), and Vishaka (sexual harassment guidelines).
• The Court has repeatedly cautioned against "publicity interest litigation" and imposes costs on frivolous petitions.