Which of the following statements about Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is/are correct?
1. In India, it adheres to the strict requirements imposed by the doctrine of locus standi.
2. Letters to judges may be treated as petitions.
3. M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India was a PIL that expanded the scope of Article 21 and Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Select the answer using the code given below.

Question

Which of the following statements about Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is/are correct?

1. In India, it adheres to the strict requirements imposed by the doctrine of locus standi.

2. Letters to judges may be treated as petitions.

3. M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India was a PIL that expanded the scope of Article 21 and Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Select the answer using the code given below.

Accepted Answer

Answer: 2 and 3 only. PIL in India is a deliberate departure from the strict doctrine of locus standi -- courts relaxed standing rules to allow any public-spirited person to approach them on behalf of those unable to do so themselves, so statement 1 is incorrect. The Supreme Court has entertained even letters and postcards addressed to judges as writ petitions (epistolary jurisdiction), making statement 2 correct. M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India was a landmark PIL that significantly expanded judicial interpretation of Article 21 (right to life, including a clean environment) invoked through Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies), making statement 3 correct.

Explanation