Legal Principles

The principle of judicial review refers to the power of the judiciary, particularly the higher courts such as the Supreme Court or High Courts, to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive actions. Through this power, the courts can invalidate laws, policies, or actions that violate the Constitution.
Judicial review acts as a check and balance on the legislature and executive, ensuring that their powers are exercised within constitutional limits.
It protects fundamental rights by striking down laws that infringe upon these rights.
The principle upholds the supremacy of the Constitution by ensuring that all laws conform to constitutional provisions.
Judicial review also maintains the rule of law by preventing arbitrary use of power.
Thus, judicial review safeguards democracy by ensuring that the government acts in accordance with the Constitution.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a judicial innovation in India that allows any concerned individual or group to file a petition on behalf of those whose fundamental rights are being violated but who may not be able to approach the court themselves.
The doctrine of locus standi (right to be heard) was traditionally strict—only directly affected individuals could approach the court. However, Indian courts have relaxed this principle to allow public-spirited individuals to represent disadvantaged groups. This liberalization of locus standi is the foundation of PILs and has empowered courts to deliver justice to marginalized and voiceless populations.
Assertion (A): True — anyone acting in public interest can file a PIL.
Reason (R): True — the courts have made locus standi more flexible to facilitate this.
Explanation: Since (R) explains (A), option (A) is correct.

Article 136 of the Constitution of India provides the Supreme Court with special powers to grant leave to appeal against any judgment, decree, or order passed by any court or tribunal in India. This power is extraordinary and discretionary in nature. It is not a matter of right for the petitioner but lies entirely at the discretion of the Supreme Court. It is generally used in cases where a substantial question of law or a miscarriage of justice is involved.
Option (A) is correct because Article 136 covers any court or tribunal.
Option (B), (C), and (D) are incorrect as they limit the scope of Article 136, which is not restricted to only High Courts, subordinate courts, or tribunals.