Both statements are factually incorrect. Statement 1 is false because in PIL, courts play an active, interventionist role — they can appoint commissions, issue continuing mandamus, monitor compliance, and even formulate policy guidelines (unlike traditional adversarial litigation where the court passively adjudicates). Statement 2 is false because PIL, by definition, addresses collective public interest, not individual grievances. PIL is designed for issues affecting sections of society who cannot approach courts themselves.