Question

Under the constitutional framework of India, the Supreme Court gradually relaxed the traditional rule of locus standi, thereby allowing public-spirited individuals to approach the Court for enforcement of fundamental rights of others. This development is most closely associated with:

• A. Enforcement of fundamental rights through individual petitions alone.
• B. Judicial review of administrative action.
• C. The evolution of Public Interest Litigation.
• D. Expansion of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Hint:

Locus Standi Relaxation = PIL! If you see "public-spirited individuals" approaching the Court for others, it is definitely a PIL.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The traditional rule of 'locus standi' (only the person whose rights are affected can sue) was a significant barrier to justice for the poor and marginalized. The Supreme Court relaxed this rule to create the mechanism of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
- Through landmark cases starting in the 1980s (like S.P. Gupta v. Union of India), the Court recognized that "public-spirited" individuals could file petitions on behalf of those who are unable to approach the court themselves.
- This transformation is the hallmark of the evolution of PIL in India, shifting the focus from "who is standing" to "what is the public wrong."

Step 3: Final Answer:
This judicial shift is defined by the evolution of Public Interest Litigation. Option (C) is correct.

Answer 2

Each option names a real feature of Indian constitutional practice, so the task is to identify which one specifically describes the relaxation of locus standi for public-spirited persons acting on behalf of others.

1. (A) Enforcement of fundamental rights through individual petitions alone: This describes the traditional position that existed before the relaxation the question is asking about, only the affected person could approach the Court. It is the opposite of what actually developed, so this option is incorrect.
2. (B) Judicial review of administrative action: This refers to the Court's power to examine whether executive or administrative decisions are lawful, a different and older doctrine concerned with the legality of governmental action rather than with who may bring the petition. This option is incorrect.
3. (C) The evolution of Public Interest Litigation: This is precisely the doctrine built around allowing a public-spirited individual to approach the Court on behalf of persons who, due to poverty, disability or social disadvantage, cannot approach it themselves. The relaxation of locus standi is the defining feature of PIL. This option is correct.
4. (D) Expansion of writ jurisdiction under Article 226: This concerns the territorial and substantive reach of the High Courts' writ powers, a related procedural tool that PIL cases sometimes use, but it does not itself describe the relaxation of who may petition. This option is incorrect.

Only Public Interest Litigation is defined by the specific development described, allowing public-spirited persons to move the Court for others.

Therefore, the correct answer is The evolution of Public Interest Litigation.