Question

Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and some person or class of persons is unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226 and in case any breach of fundamental rights of such persons or determinate class of persons, in this court under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or legal injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons.” – Justice Bhagwati in the case of:

• A. Peoples Union for Democratic Rights Vs Union of India
• B. Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs State of West Bengal
• C. S.P. Gupta Vs Union of India
• D. Janata Dal Vs H.S. Chowdhary

Hint:

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) allows individuals or organizations to seek judicial intervention on behalf of disadvantaged persons or classes of society.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Case.
In *Peoples Union for Democratic Rights Vs Union of India*, Justice Bhagwati expounded the concept of *Public Interest Litigation (PIL)*. The case recognized that any member of the public, especially when acting on behalf of disadvantaged persons, could approach the court for relief under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution, even when the affected parties themselves are unable to do so due to their disadvantaged position. Step 2: Explanation of Other Options.
- (b) Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs State of West Bengal is a case involving the scope of judicial review but does not specifically address PIL in the same context. - (c) *S. P. Gupta Vs Union of India* deals with judicial independence and the appointment of judges, not with PIL as described in the question. - (d) Janata Dal Vs H. S. Chowdhary concerns defamation, not PIL. Step 3: Conclusion.
The correct case is *Peoples Union for Democratic Rights Vs Union of India*, where PIL was expanded to allow individuals to seek justice for the poor and disadvantaged.