To provide legal aid to individuals who cannot afford it.

To promote the interests of specific groups or organizations.

To enforce fundamental rights and seek justice for marginalized communities.

To resolve disputes between private parties.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)

S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)

The right of an individual or group to bring a case before the court.

The legal standing of a party to participate in a legal proceeding.

The burden of proof required to establish a claim in court.

The principle of natural justice that requires both parties to be heard before a decision is made.

Environmental protection issues

Human rights violations

Commercial disputes

Social welfare matters

It allows the Supreme Court to monitor the implementation of its orders.

It enables the court to provide interim relief to petitioners while the case is ongoing.

It empowers the court to impose sanctions on parties who fail to comply with its orders.

It grants the court the authority to appoint commissions or committees to investigate specific issues.

By recognizing new fundamental rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

By broadening the scope of existing fundamental rights to include social and economic rights.

By creating a mechanism for individuals to enforce their fundamental rights directly.

All of the above.

Lack of awareness about PIL among marginalized communities.

Limited resources and capacity of the judiciary to handle PIL cases.

Political interference in the PIL process.

Inadequate legal aid and support for petitioners in PIL cases.

Monitoring the implementation of its orders and holding authorities accountable.

Providing interim relief to petitioners while the case is ongoing.

Appointing commissions or committees to investigate specific issues.

All of the above.

By empowering marginalized communities to seek justice.

By holding the government accountable for its actions and policies.

By promoting transparency and accountability in governance.

All of the above.

It ensures that PIL cases are brought for the benefit of the general public, not just individual interests.

It allows the Supreme Court to prioritize cases that have a wider impact on society.

It prevents frivolous or vexatious litigation from clogging the court system.

All of the above.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1985)

Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (1999)

Common Cause v. Union of India (1996)

By providing a platform for individuals to seek redress for human rights violations.

By holding the government accountable for its human rights obligations.

By raising awareness about human rights issues and promoting a culture of human rights.

All of the above.

It enables individuals and groups to challenge government policies and programs that adversely affect social welfare.

It provides a mechanism for addressing social issues such as poverty, illiteracy, and healthcare disparities.

It empowers marginalized communities to participate in decision-making processes that impact their well-being.

All of the above.

The potential for misuse and abuse of PIL for personal or political gains.

The limited capacity of the judiciary to handle the increasing number of PIL cases.

The lack of specialized courts or tribunals to deal with PIL cases efficiently.

The absence of a comprehensive legal framework governing PIL.

By promoting transparency and accountability in governance.

By empowering citizens to participate in decision-making processes.

By holding the government accountable for its actions and policies.

All of the above.