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

Hint:

If a question contains the phrases "public-spirited person," "social activist," "relaxation of locus standi," or "rights of disadvantaged groups", the answer is usually Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Concept: Traditionally, only a person whose legal rights were directly violated could approach the court. This requirement is known as locus standi. To make justice accessible to disadvantaged sections of society, the Supreme Court gradually liberalized this rule through the development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Step 1: Understanding traditional locus standi.

• Under the traditional rule, only the aggrieved person could file a petition.

• Third parties generally had no right to approach the court.

• This created difficulties for poor, illiterate, and marginalized citizens.

Step 2: Emergence of Public Interest Litigation.

• The Supreme Court, particularly during the late 1970s and 1980s, expanded access to justice.

• Public-spirited citizens, social activists, journalists, and NGOs were permitted to approach courts on behalf of affected groups.

• This innovation became known as Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Step 3: Why Option (A) is correct.

• PIL is based upon the relaxation of locus standi.

• It allows courts to protect constitutional and fundamental rights even when victims themselves cannot approach the judiciary.

• Therefore, the development described in the question is directly connected with the evolution of PIL.

Relaxation of Locus Standi is the foundation of Public Interest Litigation in India.

Answer 2

The question asks which development is most closely tied to the Supreme Court relaxing the traditional rule of locus standi so that public-spirited persons could approach the court on behalf of others. Each option can be tested by asking whether it is actually about who may approach the court, or about something else entirely.

1. The evolution of Public Interest Litigation: Public Interest Litigation is defined precisely by this relaxation, it is litigation brought not by the person whose own right is affected but by a public-spirited citizen, lawyer or organisation acting on behalf of those who cannot approach the court themselves. The loosening of locus standi is not an incidental feature of PIL, it is the very mechanism that makes PIL possible.
2. Judicial review of administrative action: This concept concerns the grounds on which a court can examine and set aside an administrative decision, such as illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. It answers what a court can strike down, not who is entitled to walk into court in the first place, so it addresses a different legal question altogether.
3. Enforcement of fundamental rights through individual petitions alone: This describes the opposite of what the question portrays. Restricting enforcement to individual petitions means only the person whose own right is violated can move the court, which is exactly the traditional, narrow rule that the Supreme Court moved away from, not the relaxed rule the question is describing.
4. Expansion of writ jurisdiction under Article 226: This concerns the territorial and subject-matter reach of High Courts issuing writs, essentially where and over what a court can exercise its writ powers. It is a jurisdictional expansion, not a change in who may bring the petition, so it does not capture the relaxation of standing described in the question.

Only Public Interest Litigation is built around the idea of allowing someone other than the directly aggrieved person to seek enforcement of rights, which is exactly the relaxation of locus standi the question describes.

Hence, the correct answer is the evolution of Public Interest Litigation.