Public Interest Litigation

PIL stands for Public Interest Litigation, which refers to a legal action taken by individuals or organizations on behalf of the public or a group of people who are affected by a particular issue or violation of rights. It aims to protect and promote the interests of the public and ensure justice, fairness, and accountability. PIL serves as a mechanism to address social, environmental, and human rights issues, and it plays a crucial role in bringing about social change and upholding the principles of democracy and justice.

PIL, or Public Interest Litigation, can be filed under both the Supreme Court and the High Court. This means that individuals or organizations can approach either court to seek legal remedies for issues that affect the public interest. The option "Both a and b" correctly reflects this fact.

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer was another judge who accepted PIL along with Justice P.N. Bhagwati.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) originated in the USA. It is a legal mechanism that allows individuals or organizations to file lawsuits on behalf of the public interest or for the benefit of the general public. PIL enables citizens to bring attention to issues that affect society as a whole and seek legal remedies. This concept gained prominence in the USA during the 1960s and 1970s, with landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. PIL has since been adopted by various countries, including India, as a means to promote justice and protect the rights of the marginalized.

Justice P.N. Bhagwati is identified as the personality in this question.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) provides an inexpensive legal remedy for vigilant citizens as it only requires a nominal fixed court fee. Additionally, PIL allows litigants to address and achieve results related to larger public issues such as human rights, consumer welfare, and the environment. Therefore, both statements 1 and 2 are correct.

Remedial in Nature

Remedial nature of PUL departs from traditional locus standi rules. It is indirectly incorporated the principles enshrined in the Part IV into Part III of Indian Constitution.
Non-Adversarial Litigation

Non-adversarial litigation has two aspects, namely:
Collaborative Litigation: In collaborative litigation the effort is from all the sides. The claimant, the court and the Government or the public official, all are in collaboration here to see that basic human rights become meaningful for the large masses of the people.

Investigative Litigation: It is investigative litigation because of it works on the reports of the Registrar, District Magistrate, comments of experts, newspaper, etc.
Relaxation of Strict Rule of Locus Standi

The rule of locus standi have been relaxed and a person acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.

Representative Standing

Representative standing can be seen as a creative expansion of the well-accepted standing exception which allows a third party to file a habeas corpus petition on the ground that the injured party cannot approach the court himself.

And in this regard the Indian concept of PIL is much broader in relation to the American PIL which is a modified form of class action.

This case was filed by an advocate and focussed on the inhuman conditions of the prisons,this case led to release more than 40,000 under trial prisoners.

The correct answer is b and c. This is because the court can treat a letter as a writ petition only in cases where it is not addressed by an aggrieved person, but rather by a public spirited individual or a social action group. Additionally, the court can also treat the letter as a writ petition if it is for the enforcement of the constitutional or legal rights of a person in custody or a class or group of persons who are socially or economically disadvantaged. Therefore, both statements b and c are correct.

The given question does not provide any context or information to determine the specific context in which Justice Iyer made his statement. Therefore, it is not possible to provide an explanation for the correct answer.