Passage Based Questions: Legal Aptitude - 13 | Passage Based Questions for CLAT Preparation PDF Download

Looking at the opening lines of the passage the author mentions about the advent of the PIL (Public interest litigation). In order to protect the interest of underprivileged and vulnerable people in the society PIL were born out of empathy from the court. It is to be noted that court is the sole protector of the constitution and the values and fundamental rights are guaranteed by the court.
So option D provides the better answer. Other options can be rejected as they are either out of context of the reasoning or do not imply growth of PIL.

Throughout the passage the author explained the role of the court as the sole protector of the constitution and the people rights, so the question of undue motive is out of context with respect of the scope of the passage. Option A confuses as the opening words suggest same thing as above but then it says public debate should not be allowed as in the lines 24-25 the author says judgements are not cloistered virtues and they should be subjected to debate. So clearly option A is conflicted .Similarly option B and C are out of context of the passage.
So clearly option D which satisfies all the constraints is the answer.

Option A proves the point that court intervention has led to loss of reputation and GDP (gross domestic product) for businesses.
So option A is the correct answer, other options can simply be ignored.

Refer to the lines 22-24 in the passage .The author explains about how PILs were being used as a tool to temper with economic institutions and businesses which were meant to protect the interests of underprivileged. He cites the examples of Jain Hawala case and 2G case to prove his point. These cases led to mass aquittals and nobody could be blamed resulting in loss of time and reputation of the business. So clearly option A is the correct answer. Option C is also a close answer but more or less there is no strength in the argument to be the main point of the passage. Why executives be obstructed even in good faith will be the question unanswerable. Option B is just the opening sentence of the passage and option D is debatable as mentioned by the author.
So option A is the answer.

There is no point of hazards of asbestos manufacturing unit outside the city. And moreover the intent of the rival group which manufactures asbestos substitutes can be viewed as to tarnish the image of other business. Clearly there has been misuse of the PIL by other rival business. 
So option A is the correct answer. Other options can be rejected outright.