I THAT THE COURT HAS REQUISITE JURISDICTION TO MAINTAIN THIS

PETITION
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme court that there lies no preliminary objection
regarding the maintanaibility of Public Interest Litigation filed before this Hon’ble Supreme
Court. The present issue pertains to the validity of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The present case filed is maintainable primarly because a)
Petitioner has a locus standi in the present case b) There has been a gross violation of
Fundamental Rights of Transgender community and therefore the matter is of public importance.

1.1 Petitioner has a locus standi

Locus standi according to the Black’s Law dictionary means a place of standing in court. 1 The
traditional definition of locus standi means that only those whose rights are directly and
substantively invaded can approach the court2.

However, in Fertilizer corporation Kamagar Union v. Union of India it was held that when
public interest is affected by a state action, an organization which has special interest in public
matter or a member thereof should be allowed to apply for a writ. 3 The petitioner being an
activist having special interest in public matter has a locus standi to apply for a writ.

In Janata Dal vs H.S. Choudhary 4 the court emphasized that the requirement for locus standi is
mandatory, however, the strict rule of locus standi is relaxed and a broad rule is evolved which
gives the right of locus standi to any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient
interest in instituting an action for redressal of public wrong or public injury, but who is not a
mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper.

The petitioner acting for the larger good of the members of the society has filled a public interest
litigation by the way of a writ petition. 'PIL' means a legal action initiated in a Court of Law for
the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the

1
http://blacks_law.enacademic.com/34384/locus_standi
2
Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 783
3
Fertilizer corporation Kamagar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981
4
Janata Dal vs H.S. Chowdhary And Ors, AIR1993 SC 892
community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected5.
It was held in People's Union For Democratic Rights vs Union Of India & Others 6 that public
interest litigation is brought before the court not for the purpose of enforcing the right of one
individual against another as happens in the case of ordinary litigation, but it is intended
to promote and indicate public interest which demands that violations of constitutional or legal
rights of large number of people. Thus, even though the petitioner in this case is not directly
affected, being a concerned citizen and acting bona fide on behalf of all the users of Saypm
whose privacy has been infringed he has a locus standi
1.2 Fundmental Rights being violated

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoke ed under Article 32 of the Constitution for
the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution.The sole
objective of Art. 32 is the enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution
of India. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked in any case of violation
of a fundamental right guaranteed by part III of the Constitution of India as has been observed in
the case of Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India7 amongst the many others. The
constitution makers conferred on the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the speedy
enforcement of fundamental rights and made the right to approach the Supreme Court for such
enforcement itself a fundamental right.8

In the present case,transgenders are not treated equals, And the Right to Equality of an individual
which comes under the purview of Article 14 and 15 is also violated. Hence the petitioner is
justified in challenging the authority of the Central Government and filing a writ petition for the
same under Art. 32.

5
Id
6
People'S Union For Democratic Rights vs Union Of India & Others, 1982 AIR 1473, 1983 SCR (1) 456

7
AIR 1951 SC 41
8
Durga Das Basu, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3711 (8rd Ed., Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa 2008).
Hence, it is humbly submitted that since there has been a violation of the fundamental rights, the
Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India bought as a Public Interest Litigation.