Question Description
Passage:The role of India’s judiciary in securing the enforcement of rights outside statute law but within the Constitutional mandate promoted public interest litigation (PIL) in the 1980s. PIL is a broad-based, people-orientated approach, which promotes access to justice through judge-made processes and remedies. PIL revolutionized the judicial procedure by introducing three procedural innovations: (i) expanded standing; (ii) non-adversarial procedure; and (iii) wider remedial action as a result of expanded frontiers of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Environmental PIL is a product of the Courts’ response to inaction by the state or the wrongful action of state agencies in performing their statutory duties, which has resulted in endangering or impairing the quality of life of people as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The state is under a duty to enforce this Constitutional right by devising and implementing a coherent and coordinated programme for the well-being of the population. Failure on the part of the state prompted judges to issue brief interim directions entitled ‘continuing mandamus’. In this context, PIL is considered a ‘wheel of transformation’ providing access to justice, inter alia, to victims of environmental degradation. In the past two decades Courts have locked together human rights and the environment and entertained PIL petitions from various quarters seeking remedies, including the issuing of guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. The proactive judiciary, acting as ‘amicus environment’, has produced a major shift in the environmental landscape of India and has also declared and promoted the principles ofsustainable development and the precautionary and the polluter pays principles as elements of fundamental law.The active engagement of the Indian judiciary in imparting environmental justice nonetheless raised concerns about the effectiveness of PIL. This was in relation to the rapidly increasing number of petitions, complex technical and scientific issues, unrealistic Court directions, and individual judicial preferences – often personality driven rather than reflecting collective institutionalized adjudication – as well as the issue of creeping jurisdiction. Although the Supreme Court created a procedure that allowed indigents and concerned citizens to access the Courts via PIL, it did not prove to be the much heralded ‘magic bullet’.Q.Which of the following is true?A) For the past couple of decades, Courts have seen human rights along with the environmentB) The proactive role of judiciary in safeguarding the environment has failed to yield desired resultsa)Both (A) and (B)b)Neither (A) nor (B)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Passage:The role of India’s judiciary in securing the enforcement of rights outside statute law but within the Constitutional mandate promoted public interest litigation (PIL) in the 1980s. PIL is a broad-based, people-orientated approach, which promotes access to justice through judge-made processes and remedies. PIL revolutionized the judicial procedure by introducing three procedural innovations: (i) expanded standing; (ii) non-adversarial procedure; and (iii) wider remedial action as a result of expanded frontiers of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Environmental PIL is a product of the Courts’ response to inaction by the state or the wrongful action of state agencies in performing their statutory duties, which has resulted in endangering or impairing the quality of life of people as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The state is under a duty to enforce this Constitutional right by devising and implementing a coherent and coordinated programme for the well-being of the population. Failure on the part of the state prompted judges to issue brief interim directions entitled ‘continuing mandamus’. In this context, PIL is considered a ‘wheel of transformation’ providing access to justice, inter alia, to victims of environmental degradation. In the past two decades Courts have locked together human rights and the environment and entertained PIL petitions from various quarters seeking remedies, including the issuing of guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. The proactive judiciary, acting as ‘amicus environment’, has produced a major shift in the environmental landscape of India and has also declared and promoted the principles ofsustainable development and the precautionary and the polluter pays principles as elements of fundamental law.The active engagement of the Indian judiciary in imparting environmental justice nonetheless raised concerns about the effectiveness of PIL. This was in relation to the rapidly increasing number of petitions, complex technical and scientific issues, unrealistic Court directions, and individual judicial preferences – often personality driven rather than reflecting collective institutionalized adjudication – as well as the issue of creeping jurisdiction. Although the Supreme Court created a procedure that allowed indigents and concerned citizens to access the Courts via PIL, it did not prove to be the much heralded ‘magic bullet’.Q.Which of the following is true?A) For the past couple of decades, Courts have seen human rights along with the environmentB) The proactive role of judiciary in safeguarding the environment has failed to yield desired resultsa)Both (A) and (B)b)Neither (A) nor (B)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Passage:The role of India’s judiciary in securing the enforcement of rights outside statute law but within the Constitutional mandate promoted public interest litigation (PIL) in the 1980s. PIL is a broad-based, people-orientated approach, which promotes access to justice through judge-made processes and remedies. PIL revolutionized the judicial procedure by introducing three procedural innovations: (i) expanded standing; (ii) non-adversarial procedure; and (iii) wider remedial action as a result of expanded frontiers of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Environmental PIL is a product of the Courts’ response to inaction by the state or the wrongful action of state agencies in performing their statutory duties, which has resulted in endangering or impairing the quality of life of people as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The state is under a duty to enforce this Constitutional right by devising and implementing a coherent and coordinated programme for the well-being of the population. Failure on the part of the state prompted judges to issue brief interim directions entitled ‘continuing mandamus’. In this context, PIL is considered a ‘wheel of transformation’ providing access to justice, inter alia, to victims of environmental degradation. In the past two decades Courts have locked together human rights and the environment and entertained PIL petitions from various quarters seeking remedies, including the issuing of guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. The proactive judiciary, acting as ‘amicus environment’, has produced a major shift in the environmental landscape of India and has also declared and promoted the principles ofsustainable development and the precautionary and the polluter pays principles as elements of fundamental law.The active engagement of the Indian judiciary in imparting environmental justice nonetheless raised concerns about the effectiveness of PIL. This was in relation to the rapidly increasing number of petitions, complex technical and scientific issues, unrealistic Court directions, and individual judicial preferences – often personality driven rather than reflecting collective institutionalized adjudication – as well as the issue of creeping jurisdiction. Although the Supreme Court created a procedure that allowed indigents and concerned citizens to access the Courts via PIL, it did not prove to be the much heralded ‘magic bullet’.Q.Which of the following is true?A) For the past couple of decades, Courts have seen human rights along with the environmentB) The proactive role of judiciary in safeguarding the environment has failed to yield desired resultsa)Both (A) and (B)b)Neither (A) nor (B)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Passage:The role of India’s judiciary in securing the enforcement of rights outside statute law but within the Constitutional mandate promoted public interest litigation (PIL) in the 1980s. PIL is a broad-based, people-orientated approach, which promotes access to justice through judge-made processes and remedies. PIL revolutionized the judicial procedure by introducing three procedural innovations: (i) expanded standing; (ii) non-adversarial procedure; and (iii) wider remedial action as a result of expanded frontiers of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Environmental PIL is a product of the Courts’ response to inaction by the state or the wrongful action of state agencies in performing their statutory duties, which has resulted in endangering or impairing the quality of life of people as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The state is under a duty to enforce this Constitutional right by devising and implementing a coherent and coordinated programme for the well-being of the population. Failure on the part of the state prompted judges to issue brief interim directions entitled ‘continuing mandamus’. In this context, PIL is considered a ‘wheel of transformation’ providing access to justice, inter alia, to victims of environmental degradation. In the past two decades Courts have locked together human rights and the environment and entertained PIL petitions from various quarters seeking remedies, including the issuing of guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. The proactive judiciary, acting as ‘amicus environment’, has produced a major shift in the environmental landscape of India and has also declared and promoted the principles ofsustainable development and the precautionary and the polluter pays principles as elements of fundamental law.The active engagement of the Indian judiciary in imparting environmental justice nonetheless raised concerns about the effectiveness of PIL. This was in relation to the rapidly increasing number of petitions, complex technical and scientific issues, unrealistic Court directions, and individual judicial preferences – often personality driven rather than reflecting collective institutionalized adjudication – as well as the issue of creeping jurisdiction. Although the Supreme Court created a procedure that allowed indigents and concerned citizens to access the Courts via PIL, it did not prove to be the much heralded ‘magic bullet’.Q.Which of the following is true?A) For the past couple of decades, Courts have seen human rights along with the environmentB) The proactive role of judiciary in safeguarding the environment has failed to yield desired resultsa)Both (A) and (B)b)Neither (A) nor (B)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Passage:The role of India’s judiciary in securing the enforcement of rights outside statute law but within the Constitutional mandate promoted public interest litigation (PIL) in the 1980s. PIL is a broad-based, people-orientated approach, which promotes access to justice through judge-made processes and remedies. PIL revolutionized the judicial procedure by introducing three procedural innovations: (i) expanded standing; (ii) non-adversarial procedure; and (iii) wider remedial action as a result of expanded frontiers of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Environmental PIL is a product of the Courts’ response to inaction by the state or the wrongful action of state agencies in performing their statutory duties, which has resulted in endangering or impairing the quality of life of people as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The state is under a duty to enforce this Constitutional right by devising and implementing a coherent and coordinated programme for the well-being of the population. Failure on the part of the state prompted judges to issue brief interim directions entitled ‘continuing mandamus’. In this context, PIL is considered a ‘wheel of transformation’ providing access to justice, inter alia, to victims of environmental degradation. In the past two decades Courts have locked together human rights and the environment and entertained PIL petitions from various quarters seeking remedies, including the issuing of guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. The proactive judiciary, acting as ‘amicus environment’, has produced a major shift in the environmental landscape of India and has also declared and promoted the principles ofsustainable development and the precautionary and the polluter pays principles as elements of fundamental law.The active engagement of the Indian judiciary in imparting environmental justice nonetheless raised concerns about the effectiveness of PIL. This was in relation to the rapidly increasing number of petitions, complex technical and scientific issues, unrealistic Court directions, and individual judicial preferences – often personality driven rather than reflecting collective institutionalized adjudication – as well as the issue of creeping jurisdiction. Although the Supreme Court created a procedure that allowed indigents and concerned citizens to access the Courts via PIL, it did not prove to be the much heralded ‘magic bullet’.Q.Which of the following is true?A) For the past couple of decades, Courts have seen human rights along with the environmentB) The proactive role of judiciary in safeguarding the environment has failed to yield desired resultsa)Both (A) and (B)b)Neither (A) nor (B)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Passage:The role of India’s judiciary in securing the enforcement of rights outside statute law but within the Constitutional mandate promoted public interest litigation (PIL) in the 1980s. PIL is a broad-based, people-orientated approach, which promotes access to justice through judge-made processes and remedies. PIL revolutionized the judicial procedure by introducing three procedural innovations: (i) expanded standing; (ii) non-adversarial procedure; and (iii) wider remedial action as a result of expanded frontiers of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Environmental PIL is a product of the Courts’ response to inaction by the state or the wrongful action of state agencies in performing their statutory duties, which has resulted in endangering or impairing the quality of life of people as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The state is under a duty to enforce this Constitutional right by devising and implementing a coherent and coordinated programme for the well-being of the population. Failure on the part of the state prompted judges to issue brief interim directions entitled ‘continuing mandamus’. In this context, PIL is considered a ‘wheel of transformation’ providing access to justice, inter alia, to victims of environmental degradation. In the past two decades Courts have locked together human rights and the environment and entertained PIL petitions from various quarters seeking remedies, including the issuing of guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. The proactive judiciary, acting as ‘amicus environment’, has produced a major shift in the environmental landscape of India and has also declared and promoted the principles ofsustainable development and the precautionary and the polluter pays principles as elements of fundamental law.The active engagement of the Indian judiciary in imparting environmental justice nonetheless raised concerns about the effectiveness of PIL. This was in relation to the rapidly increasing number of petitions, complex technical and scientific issues, unrealistic Court directions, and individual judicial preferences – often personality driven rather than reflecting collective institutionalized adjudication – as well as the issue of creeping jurisdiction. Although the Supreme Court created a procedure that allowed indigents and concerned citizens to access the Courts via PIL, it did not prove to be the much heralded ‘magic bullet’.Q.Which of the following is true?A) For the past couple of decades, Courts have seen human rights along with the environmentB) The proactive role of judiciary in safeguarding the environment has failed to yield desired resultsa)Both (A) and (B)b)Neither (A) nor (B)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Passage:The role of India’s judiciary in securing the enforcement of rights outside statute law but within the Constitutional mandate promoted public interest litigation (PIL) in the 1980s. PIL is a broad-based, people-orientated approach, which promotes access to justice through judge-made processes and remedies. PIL revolutionized the judicial procedure by introducing three procedural innovations: (i) expanded standing; (ii) non-adversarial procedure; and (iii) wider remedial action as a result of expanded frontiers of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Environmental PIL is a product of the Courts’ response to inaction by the state or the wrongful action of state agencies in performing their statutory duties, which has resulted in endangering or impairing the quality of life of people as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The state is under a duty to enforce this Constitutional right by devising and implementing a coherent and coordinated programme for the well-being of the population. Failure on the part of the state prompted judges to issue brief interim directions entitled ‘continuing mandamus’. In this context, PIL is considered a ‘wheel of transformation’ providing access to justice, inter alia, to victims of environmental degradation. In the past two decades Courts have locked together human rights and the environment and entertained PIL petitions from various quarters seeking remedies, including the issuing of guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. The proactive judiciary, acting as ‘amicus environment’, has produced a major shift in the environmental landscape of India and has also declared and promoted the principles ofsustainable development and the precautionary and the polluter pays principles as elements of fundamental law.The active engagement of the Indian judiciary in imparting environmental justice nonetheless raised concerns about the effectiveness of PIL. This was in relation to the rapidly increasing number of petitions, complex technical and scientific issues, unrealistic Court directions, and individual judicial preferences – often personality driven rather than reflecting collective institutionalized adjudication – as well as the issue of creeping jurisdiction. Although the Supreme Court created a procedure that allowed indigents and concerned citizens to access the Courts via PIL, it did not prove to be the much heralded ‘magic bullet’.Q.Which of the following is true?A) For the past couple of decades, Courts have seen human rights along with the environmentB) The proactive role of judiciary in safeguarding the environment has failed to yield desired resultsa)Both (A) and (B)b)Neither (A) nor (B)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Passage:The role of India’s judiciary in securing the enforcement of rights outside statute law but within the Constitutional mandate promoted public interest litigation (PIL) in the 1980s. PIL is a broad-based, people-orientated approach, which promotes access to justice through judge-made processes and remedies. PIL revolutionized the judicial procedure by introducing three procedural innovations: (i) expanded standing; (ii) non-adversarial procedure; and (iii) wider remedial action as a result of expanded frontiers of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Environmental PIL is a product of the Courts’ response to inaction by the state or the wrongful action of state agencies in performing their statutory duties, which has resulted in endangering or impairing the quality of life of people as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The state is under a duty to enforce this Constitutional right by devising and implementing a coherent and coordinated programme for the well-being of the population. Failure on the part of the state prompted judges to issue brief interim directions entitled ‘continuing mandamus’. In this context, PIL is considered a ‘wheel of transformation’ providing access to justice, inter alia, to victims of environmental degradation. In the past two decades Courts have locked together human rights and the environment and entertained PIL petitions from various quarters seeking remedies, including the issuing of guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. The proactive judiciary, acting as ‘amicus environment’, has produced a major shift in the environmental landscape of India and has also declared and promoted the principles ofsustainable development and the precautionary and the polluter pays principles as elements of fundamental law.The active engagement of the Indian judiciary in imparting environmental justice nonetheless raised concerns about the effectiveness of PIL. This was in relation to the rapidly increasing number of petitions, complex technical and scientific issues, unrealistic Court directions, and individual judicial preferences – often personality driven rather than reflecting collective institutionalized adjudication – as well as the issue of creeping jurisdiction. Although the Supreme Court created a procedure that allowed indigents and concerned citizens to access the Courts via PIL, it did not prove to be the much heralded ‘magic bullet’.Q.Which of the following is true?A) For the past couple of decades, Courts have seen human rights along with the environmentB) The proactive role of judiciary in safeguarding the environment has failed to yield desired resultsa)Both (A) and (B)b)Neither (A) nor (B)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Passage:The role of India’s judiciary in securing the enforcement of rights outside statute law but within the Constitutional mandate promoted public interest litigation (PIL) in the 1980s. PIL is a broad-based, people-orientated approach, which promotes access to justice through judge-made processes and remedies. PIL revolutionized the judicial procedure by introducing three procedural innovations: (i) expanded standing; (ii) non-adversarial procedure; and (iii) wider remedial action as a result of expanded frontiers of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Environmental PIL is a product of the Courts’ response to inaction by the state or the wrongful action of state agencies in performing their statutory duties, which has resulted in endangering or impairing the quality of life of people as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The state is under a duty to enforce this Constitutional right by devising and implementing a coherent and coordinated programme for the well-being of the population. Failure on the part of the state prompted judges to issue brief interim directions entitled ‘continuing mandamus’. In this context, PIL is considered a ‘wheel of transformation’ providing access to justice, inter alia, to victims of environmental degradation. In the past two decades Courts have locked together human rights and the environment and entertained PIL petitions from various quarters seeking remedies, including the issuing of guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. The proactive judiciary, acting as ‘amicus environment’, has produced a major shift in the environmental landscape of India and has also declared and promoted the principles ofsustainable development and the precautionary and the polluter pays principles as elements of fundamental law.The active engagement of the Indian judiciary in imparting environmental justice nonetheless raised concerns about the effectiveness of PIL. This was in relation to the rapidly increasing number of petitions, complex technical and scientific issues, unrealistic Court directions, and individual judicial preferences – often personality driven rather than reflecting collective institutionalized adjudication – as well as the issue of creeping jurisdiction. Although the Supreme Court created a procedure that allowed indigents and concerned citizens to access the Courts via PIL, it did not prove to be the much heralded ‘magic bullet’.Q.Which of the following is true?A) For the past couple of decades, Courts have seen human rights along with the environmentB) The proactive role of judiciary in safeguarding the environment has failed to yield desired resultsa)Both (A) and (B)b)Neither (A) nor (B)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.