CHAPTER - IV

LIBERALIZATION OF LOCUS STANDI

4.1 Introduction

Statutes provide different ways by which real and potential litigants can vindicate

their legal rights within the parameters of the legal systems. Access to justice involves

being able to access the courts, access legal representation of one’s choice as well as

access to judicial remedies. In legal system, enhancing access to justice is to the benefit

of the general public, especially the poor and the vulnerable. The purpose is not just to

enhance access to justice, but also to prepare a level playing ground for all as well as

equal access to justice by all and sundry. Social action and social reform is one of the

most important developments that took place in the recent years through legal action

known as Public Interest Litigation, (herein after referred as PIL). Until the emergence of

PIL, justice was a remote reality for illiterate, underprivileged and exploited masses.

Illiterate people are generally not aware of their legal rights, even if they are aware of

their rights some time they may not be having means to pursue their legal remedies.1

Justice delivery system has acquired a big significance in modern legal

jurisprudence practice.2 It has been referred to as a new judicial process introduced by

courts to accomplish the social revolution contemplated by the makers of the Indian

Constitution. It represents sustained efforts on the part of judiciary to provide access to

justice for the deprived and vulnerable sections of the humanity.3 The person whose

fundamental right is violated can move to the Supreme Court for enforcement of their

1
P.D. Mathew Public Interest Litigation (PIL), in, http: //www.ignou.ac.in, Accessed on November 8,
2014.
2
Janata Dal v. H. S. Chaudhury, (1992) 4 SCC 305.
3
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan, AIR 2004 SC 561.
 126

fundamental rights.4 The courts exercising the power of judicial review found to its

dismay that the poorest of the poor, deprived, illiterate, urban and rural unorganized

labour sector, women, children and those handicapped by ignorance, indigence and

illiteracy had either no access to justice or had been denied justice. Representative action,

pro bono publico and test litigation were entertained in keeping with the accent on justice

to the common man.

4.2 Meaning

Access to justice has become major hurdle for under privileged people in realizing

their rights in the contemporary societies particularly in the third world countries because

of poverty, ignorance and disability which have forced the judiciary to evolve a new

statesman as it is realized that justice is a distant dream for them. In this regard, one of

the most important legal issues confronting the judicial community world over is the rule

of standing or locus standi. In the context of growing demand to protect the weaker

sections of the society, to correct the exercise of public power, and ensure just and fair

working of the executive government, relaxation in the rule of standing proved

unavoidable.5

Many legal systems, particularly in common law and civil law jurisdiction, accord

litigants access to courts to the extent that such litigants have acquired special or peculiar

interest in the claim or that they have suffered or will suffer from the act to be impugned.

This is commonly referred to as locus standi or standing to sue.6 The principle of locus

standi is an age old one that forms the basis of any action in a court of law. Locus Standi

4
See, Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
5
Mamta Rao, Public Interest Litigation Legal Aid and Lok Adalats, 2nd edn. (New Delhi: Eastern Book
Company, 2004), pp.64-65.
6
R.K. Salman, O.O. Ayankogbe, “Denial of Access to Justice in Public Interest Litigation in Nigeria: Need
to Learn from Indian Judiciary”, 53: 4 JILI (2011), pp. 595 - 596.
 127

is a Latin phrase meaning “place to stand”. According to Black’s law Dictionary locus

standi means the right to bring an action or to be heard in given forum.7 In simple words
8
locus standi may use it as “standing” or “legal standing.” Leslie Stein, an Australian

jurist, has said that locus standi is influenced by a number of factors for a given person or

situation and legal standing can vary depending on the level of the court. As a general

rule, a person has locus standi in a given situation if it is possible for such a person to

show that the issue at hand causes harm and that an action undertaken by the court could

redress that harm. Lord Denning in R v. Paddington9 as observed that the court would not

listen, of course, to a mere busybody who was interfering in things which did not concern

him. But it will listen to anyone whose interests are affected by what has been done. For

instance, if a citizen wants to challenge a law, the citizen must first show that he or she is

experiencing harm as a result of that law. This means that people cannot challenge laws

just on the principle of the matter or because they think that those laws might harm other

people. These individuals must also be able to show that when the case is filed, their

interest is also affected by the law which is commonly known as locus standi.10

In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit

challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he or

she will imminently be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff

“lacks standing” to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the

merits of the claim as unconstitutional. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional,

there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose

7
Black’s Law Dictionary, Bryan Garner, ed., 7th edn. (Minn., USA: St. Paul, 1999), p. 952.
8
What is Locus Standi; in, http: //www.wisegeek.com., Accessed, on October 20, 2014.
9
(1966) 1 QB 380.
10
Understanding The Principle of Locus Standi, Lawyers Chronicle, The Magazine for the African Lawyer,
in, http://www.thelawyerschronicle.com/ Accessed on November 12, 2014.
 128

in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law. The Supreme Court of

the United States11 has stated: “In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant

is entitled to have the court to decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues”.

Locus Standi exists in the United States legal system because of three reasons,12 viz: the

party has ‘something to loose,’ the law has ‘chilling effect’ or the law has granted him

standing.

According to initial interpretation of Article 32 of the Constitution of India, only

aggrieved party had the right to seek redress. Bhagwati,P.N. J., in S. P. Gupta v. Union of

India,13 articulated the concept of PIL as follows,

“Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate

class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any
burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or
without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden
is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons by reasons of
poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged
position to approach the court for relief, any member of public can maintain an
application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under
Article 226 and in case any breach of fundamental rights of such persons or
determinate class of persons, in this court under Article 32 seeking judicial
redress for the legal wrong or legal injury caused to such person or determinate
class of persons.”

11
R v. Liverpool Corporation Exparte Liverpole Taxi Fleet Operators’ Association, (1972) 2 QB 299.
12
First, the party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered
will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply
to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the “something to lose” doctrine, in which
the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court
for relief. Second, the party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for
relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued
existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this
is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the
plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what
was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called “chilling
effects” doctrine. Third, the party is granted automatic standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in
the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even
if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive a portion of any
fines collected by the government from their violation of the law. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a
book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without
having to ask a District Attorney to do so.
13
AIR 1982 SC 149.
 129

Locus Standi means the right to bring an action, to be heard in court, or to address

the court on a matter before it. In other words, the term “locus standi” can be understood

as legal capacity to challenge legislation, an order or a decision.14 Under the traditional

rule of locus standi a person could seek direction under Article 32 of the Constitution of

India only in case infringement of their legal right by either the Government or any other

public body charged with statutory duties and any public. Such legal right must either be

personal or individual. The person aggrieved or affected alone could maintain a writ

petition in case of infringement of specific subsisting legal right.15 This is one of the

most vexed questions of administrative law. Where a party who has no locus standi files

a petition, it need not be heard on merits. The concept of “locus standi” is being

liberalized and the scope of the concept is being expanded day to day.16 A person

claiming a share in the compensation awarded can be said to be a “person interested”17

but a purchaser of a portion of a land after its acquisition and award will not become a

“person interested”.18 The principle of ‘locus standi’ presupposes the presence of a

person or body of persons who suffered a legal injury.

4.3 Need for Locus Standi

Article 32 makes it an obligation of the Supreme Court to protect the fundamental

rights of the people and for that purpose Apex Court has the incidental and ancillary

powers to evolve new remedies and strategies to enforce the fundamental rights,

particularly for the poor and disadvantaged who have been denied their basic human

14
V.G. Ramchandran, Law of Writs, Vol. 1, 6th edn. (Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 2006), p. 26.
15
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
16
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Kantha Chandra And Ors., AIR 1989 Kant. 1.
17
Karanpura Development Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1478.
18
P.S., Narayana, Public Interest Litigation, 2nd edn. (New Delhi: Asia Law House, 2001), p. 122.
 130

rights and to whom freedom and liberty have no meaning.19 The Supreme Court under

Article 32(1) can devise any procedure appropriate for the particular purpose of the

proceedings, namely, enforcement of a fundamental right, under Article 32(2), the court

has the implicit power to issue whatever direction, order or writ is necessary in a given

case. Article 32 of the Constitution does not prescribe persons or classes of persons who

may seek legal remedy for their grievances. The matter of “standing” thus lies within the

realm of the courts. The courts have not exhibited a uniform or consistent attitude on this

question; in some cases, they have adopted a restrictive, while in other cases, a liberal

attitude.20 The traditional rule of standing has been that a petition for a legal remedy can

ordinarily moved only by an “aggrieved person”. This principle is based on theory that

remedies and rights are correlative and therefore, only a person whose own right is in

jeopardy is entitled to seek a remedy.21 This basic rule gives rise to three propositions of

law. One, only he can take recourse to the writ jurisdiction whose own legal rights of

person or property are directly and substantially injured. Two, when a person suffers

along with other members of the public by administrative action, he cannot challenge the

action in question unless he can show some special injury to himself over and above,

what others have suffered. Three, where a person challenging an administrative action is

a total stranger (whom the courts call as a “meddlesome interloper”), the court will not

ordinarily entertain his petition.22 The underlying reason being that, the third parties who

have no interest in the case should not be allowed to take interest in the case because they

19
Dr. B. L. Wadehra, Public Interest Litigation, 4th edn. (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt.
Ltd., 2014), p.30.
20
M.P. Jain & S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law, 5th edn. (Nagpur: LexisNexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, 2009), p. 525.
21
Supra note 15, at 186, Bhagwati, J., has observed that, This rule in regard to locus standi thus postulates
a right-duty pattern which is commonly to be found in private law litigation”.
22
J.M. Desai v. Roshan Kumar, AIR 1976 SC 578.
 131

would drag the case unnecessarily. Therefore, the rule of locus standi is based on a sound

policy, that is, judicial time as well as energy ought not to be wasted over hypothetical or

abstract questions or questions at the instance of a professional litigant or busybody or

meddlesome interloper.23

4.3.1 Liberalization of Locus Standi

The problem of strict interpretation of the term locus standi came to light in the

wake of the States taking over an increasing role in socio-economic fields with its

affiliated duties and obligations of public nature. This narrow view of the law of standing

leads to several consequences. One, in some cases there may not be anyone having

standing to challenge an action of the authority and thus the concerned authority may

merrily continue its wrongful action without fear of anyone challenging its action in

court. Thus, public injuries resulting in mass suffering may remain unredressed because

none has standing to seek judicial remedy. Two, in a country like India, because of

poverty, ignorance, illiteracy and fear, the poor are unable to seek redress of their

grievances. They are unable to seek access to the courts not because the doors of the

courts are technically closed to them, but because they themselves are not financially able

to do so, and therefore they continue to suffer the wrong.24

The need for liberalization of locus standi was being felt even before the first

public interest litigation was filed. A high-powered committee was constituted by the

Government of India in 1997;25 it had emphasized the need for making the rules of locus

standi broad based. The committee observed that one being driven out of court on his

23
S.P. Sathe: Public Participation in Judicial Process: New Trends in Law of locus standi with Special
Reference to Administrative Law., vol.26 (1), JILI, 1984, p.11.
24
Supra note 20, at p. 526.
25
Which, included two very distinguished judges of the Supreme Court of India, i.e., P. N. Bhagwati, J.,
and V. R. Krishna Iyer, J.
 132

separate cause of action was itself public wrong, the rule of locus standi requires to be

broad based and any organization or individual must be able to start such legal action.26

Steps have been taken in the past and many more continue to be implemented for the

benefits of the underprivileged and oppressed classes, whereby PIL acts as an instrument

of social change and propels the representation of disadvantaged in the court of justice.

Public interest litigation has resulted out of the liberalization of the complex rules, of

formal legal system. It accelerates the zest of law to impart justice.27

PIL, which is a, comparatively modern development constitutes a significant

segment of the expanding horizon of judicial power and has acquired legitimacy. The

court described PIL as a strategic arm of the legal aid movement.28 Through the new

jurisdiction, the Indian Judges have undertaken expanding responsibilities as critics and

monitors of government and its agencies. The scope and nature of PIL has been

decisively laid down by the Supreme Court in the Asiad Workers29 when Bhagwati, J.,

described PIL as a challenge and an opportunity to the government and its officers to

make basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the

community.

Krishna Iyer, J., made a significant observation in Ratlam Municipality as early

as 1980. He said:

“… shifting the centre of gravity of justice from the traditional individualism of

locus standi to the community orientation of public interest litigation is a
constitutional mandate enshrined in the preamble.”30

26
Recommendations of the High-power Committee.
27
Public Interest Litigation: An Expression of Voice For The Sufferers of Silence, http://www. ssrn.
com/abstract= 1510271 Accessed on November 10, 2014.
28
People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC. 1473.
29
Ibid.
30
Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichand, AIR 1980 SC1622.
 133

The Supreme Court has thus taken the task of implementing the constitutional
mandate for lega1 aid31 introduced by Forty Second Amendment of the Constitution. It is
an attempt to protect and promote social justice through the instrumentality of law. PIL is
a correct reaction from the court itself in the shape of judicial effort to solve the much
agitated problem of access to justice in the legal conscience of the country. It can be said
to be a right step taken in line with the international effort to attain sustainable
development. It is a most reliable way of imparting justice to the otherwise ill-fated poor
and weaker sections of the society.32
Courts entertain PIL not in a cavalier fashion. Nor do they adopt confrontation
with the Executive and jump into the latter’s shoes in ensuring social and economic
rescue programmes. They merely assist in the realization of the Constitutional
objectives.33 But at the same time one can notice that the Supreme Court preferred to bind
itself in self-discipline and expressed resentment at the liberalizing policy from inside
towards PIL.34
Side by side with the liberalization of locus standi and the acceptance of PIL, the

court has also laid down a few constraints35 in the judicial handling of PIL cases.36 The

31
Article 39A provides for, "Equa1 justice and free lega1 aid: The State shall secure that the operation of
the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity and shall, in particular. Provide free legal
aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice
are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities".
32
Supra note 28.
33
Supreme Court described 'social justice' as a dynamic device to mitigate the sufferings of the poor, weak
and deprived sections of the society., see Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR1984 SC 802 at
8l1.
34
Sachinanda Panday v. State of West Bengal, AIR1987 SC 1109.
35
One, when the Court passes any orders in public interest litigation, the Court does so not with a view to
mocking at legislative or exhaustive authority or in a spirit of confrontation but with a view to enforcing
the Constitution and the law, because it is vital for the maintenance of the rule of law that the obligations
which are laid upon the executive by the Constitution and the law should be carried out faithfully and no
one should go away with a feeling that the Constitution and the law are meant only for the benefit of a
fortunate few and have no meaning for the large number of half-clad half-hungry people of this country.
Second, it is now settled law that the Supreme Court under Article 32, and the High Court’s under Article
226, can treat a letter as a Writ Petition and take action upon it. It is not every letter which may be treated
as a Writ Petition by the Supreme Court or the High Court. It is where a letter is addressed by an aggrieved
person or by a public spirited individual or a social action group for enforcement of the constitutional or
legal rights of a persons who by reason of poverty, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged
position finds it difficult to approach the court for redress that the Supreme Court or the High Court would
be justified, may bound, to treat the letter as a Writ Petition. There may also be cases where even a letter
addressed for redressal of a wrong done to an individual may be treated as a Writ Petition where the
Supreme Court or the High Court considers it expedient to do so in interests of justice.
36
State of H.P. v. A Parent of a student of Medical College, Simla, AIR 1985 SC 9l0.
 134

courts had to make use of different strategies for achieving the task. Liberalization of

standing is the first criteria adopted for providing access to justice.

The rules of locus standi have been relaxed and a person acting bonafide and

having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will have a locus standi and can

approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of

statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any

oblique consideration.37 PIL has come to stay and its necessity cannot be

overemphasized. The courts evolved a jurisprudence of compassion. Procedural propriety

is to move over giving place to substantive concerns of the deprivation of rights.

Therefore the rule of locus standi is diluted. The Court instead of being disinterested and

dispassionate adjudicator became active participant in the dispensation of justice”.38 Even

the Supreme Court has converted the private interest into public interest in Indian Banks’

Association, Bombay and ors v. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors.,39 wherein it

held that, “In an appropriate cases, where the petitioner might have moved a court in her

private interest and for redressal of the personal grievance, the Court in furtherance of

Public Interest may treat it a necessity to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of

litigation in the interest of justice. Thus, a private interest case can also be treated as

public interest case”

Widespread access to justice is more likely to result in equal justice. Of course,

inequalities always exist. Those, with power and resources always have a bigger effect on

governmental and private decisions than those lacking power and resources. But this

inequality is magnified where access to courts is restricted, because restrictions are less

37
http://www.shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in., Accessed, on September 15, 2014.
38
http://www.papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1934112, Accessed, on September 20, 2014.
39
(2004) 11 SCC, 1, AIR 2004 SC 2615 at 2617 and 2618.
 135

likely to affect powerful economic interests. They easily have access to the courts. As a

result, they are treated with respect by government officials. Citizens and their

organizations often do not have such equal access to justice and the effect is felt not only

in the courts but in other governmental bodies as well.

The battle over expanded standing to sue is not, in short, about whether everyone

should have access to justice. Those with money and power already have access. The

battle over standing to sue is about whether other citizens will have access as well. If

democracy is for all, if the rule of law is for all, and if justice is for all, then standing

should be for all. To put it in the proper order, where standing is available to all,

democracy, the rule of law, and justice are more likely to be for all.40

The recent trends of judicial pronouncements suggest that PIL has traversed

beyond the original objective of providing access to judicial process to the poor and the

disadvantaged. Under various public interest actions, the courts have granted relief to the

inmates of the prisons, provided legal aid, directed speedy trial and maintenance of

human dignity and covered several other similar areas.41All developed legal systems have

to face the problem of adjusting conflicts between two aspects of public interest, that is,

the desirability of encouraging individual citizens to participate actively in the

enforcement of the law and the undesirability of encouraging the professional litigants

and meddlesome interlopers to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts in matters that do not

concern them.42

40
Bonine, John E., B Roadening “Standing to Sue” For Citizen Enforcement, Fifth International
Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement, p.249. Available on http://www.inece.org/
5thvol2/bonine.pdf, Accessed, on November 5, 2014.
41
Halsbury’s Laws of India, Registration and Statistics Public Interest Litigation, Vol. 22, (New Delhi:
LexisNexis Butterworths, 2005), p. 245.007.
42
Ibid., at p. 245.01.
 136

In India, inspired by the injustices perpetrated by the successive governments,

lawyers pursued ‘public interest’ cases at the instigation of activists, in an attempt to

remedy the failure of government institutions and administrative bodies to adequately

represent and address marginalized interests. PIL claims have been used to defend the

rights of the poor, illiterate and impoverished people of India.43 The legal basis for the

development of PIL actions is derived from Article 32 of the Constitution.44 Under

Article 32, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over all cases concerning

fundamental freedoms enumerated in Articles 14 to 32.45

The origin of public interest litigation lies in the liberalization of locus standi by

the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has evolved a new rule for locus standi, that is,

any member of the public, acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an

action for redressal of public wrong or public injury. Someone should approach the courts

on behalf of others who cannot come, and that person cannot be called a ‘person

aggrieved’ in the traditional sense. The Supreme Court is forced to liberalize the rule of

locus standi when it found that the Constitution and the law is being subverted to serve

vested interests, that the poor who could not themselves approach the courts are being

exploited, that the executive is failing in the discharge of its constitutional and statutory

43
Rajan K Agarwal, “The Barefoot Lawyers: Prosecuting Child Labour in the Supreme Court of India”, 21
Arizona JICL 675 (2004).
44
People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCR 456, para, 11.
45
These fundamental rights include: equality before law, (Art. 14) no discrimination for religion, race,
caste, sex or place of birth; (Art. 15) freedom of speech, association, assembly, movement and residence
location, and of career or occupation; (Art. 19) no deprivation of life or liberty ‘without procedures
established by law’; (Art. 21) no bonded labour or slavery; (Art. 22) no child labour; (Art. 22) and freedom
of religion. (Art. 25) The State High Courts have similar jurisdiction (Art. 226). If a fundamental freedom
has been allegedly violated, the complainant may seek redress directly from the Supreme Court of India.
Article 32 specifically allows this method of redress.
 137

duties and that for millions of Indians the Constitution and the law are becoming an

empty joke.46

In order to improve the access to justice for the people, a need was felt to go

beyond the rules of standing of the British-Indian vintage. It was realized that if the

centre of gravity of justice was to shift from the traditional individualism of a locus

standi to community orientation of public interest litigation, such issue must be

considered. This is where liberalization of doctrine of locus standi is thought to be

inescapable.47 The general proposition of the law is that the interest of an individual in

the vindication of a public right would be sufficient to give him locus standi provided

that he is prejudiced by the injury to the public interest more than the other members of

the public are prejudiced thereby.48 The Indian jurists have classified petitioners into

three categories for the purpose of deciding the standing of the petitioner. (1) Persons

whose legal rights are directly or substantially affected, (2) Persons who do not claim to

have suffered any loss or damage but claim injury as a member of public; (3) Persons

who are total strangers i.e. middle some interlopers.

Liberalizing the rule of standing is a forward step in judicial activism and favors

expansion of judicial review.49 In a welfare state such exercise of judicial supervision is

quite welcome to maintain the rule of law and to check the misuse of power. It is also

essential to secure fundamental rights of the poor people of the country. Bhagwati, J.,

rightly said that if no one will have standing to challenge cases of public wrong or public

46
Supra note 19, p. 25.
47
Halsbury’s Laws of India, Registration and Statistics Public Interest Litigation Vol. 22, (New Delhi:
LexisNexis Butterworths, 2005), p. 591.
48
M.P. Jain and S.N., Jain Principles of Administrative Law, 3rd edn. (Nagpur: LexisNexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, 1979), p. 402.
49
Maheshwar Nath Chaturvedi, “Liberalizing the Requirement of Standing in Public Interest Litigation”,
26 JILI (1984), p. 50.
 138

injury, then there will be no rule of law.50 Krishna Iyer, J., in his concurring opinion in

Fertilizer Corporation Kamargar Union v. Union of India51 observed:

"In simple terms locus standi must be enlarged to meet the challenges of the time.
Ubi jus ibi remedium must be enlarged to embrace all interests of public minded
citizens or organizations with serious concern for conservation of public
resources and the direction and correction of public power so as to promote
justice in its triune facets".52

Judicial diction for liberalizing locus standi has started in the early 1980s.53 In

Dehradun Quarrying,54 a letter from Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra alleging

illegal limestone quarrying was treated as a writ petition. Recognizing the citizen's locus

standi the Court observed that preservation of the environment and keeping the

ecological balance unaffected is a task which not only governments but also every citizen

must undertake.55 Liberalization of locus standi took a new turn when in the wake of Bhopal

gas disaster the Government of India passed Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of Claims)

Act, 1985.56 Developing countries are particularly vulnerable to industrial crises.

However, industrial accidents such as Bhopal are not just an Indian or even a Third

World problem.57 Following the disaster, the Government of India passed the Bhopal Gas

Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985. The Act gave power to the Central

Government to represent all claimants in appropriate forums, appoint a Welfare

Commissioner and other staff and to discharge duties connected with hearing of the

50
Supra note 15.
51
AIR 1981 SC 344.
52
Ibid., at 355.
53
S.P.Gupta v. Union of India, AIR1981 SC 149; Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India,
AIR1981 SC 344; and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR1984 SC802.
54
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. AIR 1987 SC 359.
55
Bombay Environmental Action Group v. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 1991 Bom. 301;
D.D.Vyas v. Ghaziabad Develooment Authority, 1993 All. L.J. 86 at p.91: Rural Litigation and Entitlement
Kendra, v. State of U.P. AIR 1987 SC 359.
56
Act No. 21 of 1985.
57
http://www1.american.edu/ted/bhopal.htm., Accessed, on May 18, 2015.
 139

claims and distribution of compensation. Under this Act, in 1985, the Government

formulated a scheme known as the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Scheme, for the

registration, processing, and determination of compensation to each claim and appeals

arising from thereon. The standing of Union of India to bring the suit was justified on the

doctrine of Parens Patriae.58 As far back in 1976 the role of a judge in public law

litigation has been summed up in Harvard Law Review as follows:

"In PIL, the judge is the dominant figure in organizing and guiding the case. It is
fact evaluation rather than fact finding. It seeks to enjoin future or threatened
action and is prospective."59

Judicial activism is the result of Public Interest Litigations during the post–

emergency period. From 1978 onwards, the Supreme Court assumed a new role which

included not only the guarding of civil and political liberties but also enforcing socio-

economic rights of the citizens, particularly of the have-not’s and the downtrodden

against the tyranny of the bureaucracy and unscrupulous politicians by expanding the rule

of locus standi. As such, during the 1980’s the higher judiciary showed a tendency to

deviate from the ‘well settled principles’ of law towards the more innovative principles.60

The primary objective is being to render ‘social justice’ in consonance with the preamble

slogan of Justice – social, economic and political. ‘Public Interest Litigation’ is the

outcome of such tendency on the part of the judiciary. Krishna Iyer J. narrates Public

Interest Litigations as the product of creative judicial engineering.61 Such creative judicial

engineering is based on Roscoe Pound’s theory of Social Engineering. Professor Roscoe

58
"The concept of Parents Patriae has English origin where the crown as Parents Patriae is the
Constitutional protector of the subjects essentially in matters of public concern". See, Dr.S.K.Mukherjee in
his "Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts”, Tagore Law Lectures, 5th edn., p.404.
59
Abram Chayel, "The Role of the Judge in the Public Law Litigation" 89, Harv. L. Rev. 1281 (1975-1976)
at p.1284.
60
B.N. Srikrishna,J., “Skinning a Cat,” Journal 8 SCC 3 2005, p. 8.
61
Krishna Iyer,J., Justice at Crossroads, (New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications, 1991), p.107.
 140

Pound states “Law must be stable, yet it cannot stand still.”62 If law cannot stand still so

do judges. Further, he said “great jurists and great judges had been but the mouth pieces,

through which social forces or the civilization of the time and place or class struggle or

economic pressure and the interest of the dominant class for the time being had spoken

the law.” Lord Denning also remonstrated that judges cannot afford to be timorous souls.

They cannot remain impotent, incapable and sterile in the face of injustice.63

The emergence of Public Interest Litigations is visible not only in India but also in

other Countries.64 The need was felt to provide an appropriate solution for making justice

accessible to the marginalized sections of the society, like deprived, dispossessed and
65
disadvantaged people. The concept of ‘Public Interest Litigation’ first emerged in the

United States during the mid 1960’s through free legal aid movement and public

participation. In US, the mid 1960’s was a period of social embroilment during which

legal aid movement was gaining momentum due to the setting up of a few PIL centers

funded by a few private foundations. One such PIL institution was ‘The Council for

Public Interest Law’ set up by a private foundation called ‘The Ford Foundation’. It

defined ‘Public Interest Law’66 in its report of Public Interest Law, 1976.67 The ‘PIL’ has

62
Roscoe Pound, Interpretations of Legal History, Legal Treatises, 1800-1926, (New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1923), p. 1.
63
QuotedbyChiefJusticeP.N.Bhagawati,“JudicialActivisminIndia”,in,https://media.law.wisc.edu/m/4mdd4/g
argoyle_17_1_3.pdf., Accessed on December 2, 2014.
64
Countries like United States of America, Australia, England and Canada also have witnessed the
movement.
65
D.S. Sengar, “PIL to Ensure that Institutions behave Lawfully, Public Access to Environmental Justice in
India,” Vol. 45 (1), JILI, 2003, pp. 62 – 79.
66
“Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been given to efforts to provide legal representation to
previously non–represented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that
the ordinary market place for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the
population and to significant interests. Such groups and interest include the poor, environmentalists,
consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others.”
67
Quoted in P.M. Baxi, Public Interest Litigations, 2nd edn. (New Delhi: Ashoka Law House, 2006), p. 6.
Also quoted in S.K. Sarkar’s Public Interest Litigations and Public Nuisances, 2nd edn., (Allahabad: Orient
Publishing Company, Reprint 2007), pp. 9 – 10.
 141

been described as a strategic arm of the legal aid movement which aims at bringing

justice within the ambit of the disabled and poor masses that constitute the low visibility

area of the humanity. In this regard Bhagwati, J., said in People’s Union for Democratic

Rights v. Union of India68

In India, the classical model of civil adjudication is based on the traditional

paradigm of the adversarial judicial process. It is adversarial in nature since it involves

two parties who are adversary to each other. In cases of PIL, the two parties may not be

adversary to each other since the party raising the claim may be representing the poor,

indigent and deprived sections of the society. As such third party intervention is not

governed by the strict rule of locus standi. Thus, PIL makes a departure of the rule that

only the aggrieved can approach the court.69 It was in 1976 that the seed of the concept of

PIL was first sown in India in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai.70 Krishna Iyer J.,

while disposing of an industrial dispute with regard to the payment of bonus

acknowledged the concept of Public Interest Litigation though without assigning the

terminology.

The basis for law of locus standi is the entitlement of judicial redress for personal

injury to property, body, mind or reputation arising from violation, actual or threatened,

of the legal right or legally protected interests of the person seeking such redress this was
68
AIR 1982 SC 1473 at 1476. “We wish to point out with all the emphasis at our command that Public
Interest Litigation which is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement and which is intended to bring justice
within the reach of the poor masses, who constitute the low visibility area of humanity, is a totally different
kind of litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation which is essentially of an adversary character
where there is a dispute between two litigating practices, one making claim or seeking relief against the
other and that other opposing such claim or resisting such relief. 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 is intended to promote and vindicate public interest which demands that
violations of constitutional or legal rights of large number of people who are poor, ignorant or in a socially
or economically disadvantaged position should not go unnoticed and un-redressed.”
69
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/10603/20809/13/13_chapter%205.pdf.,
Accessed on December 1, 2014.
70
AIR 1976 SC 1455: (1976) 3 SCC 832.
 142

a rule of ancient vintage and arose during an era when private law dominated the legal

scene and public law was not yet born. The liberalization of locus standi is not only

available to the person’s, whose rights are affected by the law, but also to the person’s

whose personal right has been violated. With the passage of time, the need was felt to

liberalize this rule, keeping in mind statement of Bhagwati, J.,71 in S.P.Gupta v. Union of

India.72

In Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhichand73, the petitioner was allowed to raise the

question of public interest when he also suffered along with other members of the

society, even though his injury was not specific. In this case the residents of a locality

within limits of Ratlam Municipality were tormented by stench and stink caused by open

drains and public excretion by nearly slum dwellers moved the Magistrate under Section

133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to require the Municipality to do its duty

towards the members of the public. The Magistrate gave directions to the municipality to

draft a plan within six months for removing the nuisance. In appeal, the Session Judge

reversed the order of the Magistrate. On appeal to the High Court and on further appeal,

the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Magistrate compelling the Municipality to

provide sanitary facilities in the area.74

The phrase ‘person aggrieved’ was much discussed in R.D.Shetty v. International

Airports Authority of India,75 where acceptance of tender for running a second-class

71
“Procedure is but a handmaiden of justice and the cause of justice can never be allowed to be thwarted by
any procedural technicalities.”
72
1981 Supp SCC 87: AIR 1982 SC 189.
73
AIR 1980 SC 1622.
74
Krishna Iyer J. observed on the plea that it lacked funds: “if the centre of gravity of justice is to shift, as
the Preamble to the Constitution mandates, from traditional individualism of locus standi to the community
orientation of public interest litigation these issues must be considered”. This principle was already laid
down in K. Ramdas Shenoy v. Town Municipal Council AIR 1974 SC 2177.
75
(1979) 3 SCC 489: AIR 1979 SC 1628.
 143

restaurant and two snack bars, at International Airport, Bombay, was challenged. A writ

petition was filed by a person, who had not filed any tender, and the challenge was that

the contract was given to a person who had not filed any tender and who was not eligible

to apply, as he was not registered as a second class hotelier as required by the tender

notice. Objection was raised regarding maintainability of proceedings on the ground of

locus standi. The contention of the petitioner was that he was in the same position as the

successful tenderer because if an essential condition could be waived as in tenderer’s

case, it could be ignored in his case too. He submitted that he did not fill the tender

because of the prescribed requisite qualifications and would have applied, had he known,

that the condition of eligibility was flexible. That is how he claimed the violation of right

to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.76 The Supreme Court accepted the

standing of the petitioner to file the writ petition as the award of contract was contrary to

the terms of the tender and therefore arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution.

It will be befitting to recall the observations of Supreme Court in People’s Union

for Democratic Rights v. Union of India77 regarding locus standi which reads as, “The

traditional rule of standing which confines access to the judicial process only to those to

whom legal injury is caused or legal wrong is done has now been jettisoned by this Court

and the narrow confines within which the rule of standing was imprisoned for long years

as a result of inheritance of the Anglo Saxon system of jurisprudence have been broken

and a new dimension has been given to the doctrine of locus standi which has

76
Equality before law, The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion,
race, caste, sex or place of birth.
77
(1982) 3 SCC 235: AIR 1982 SC 1473.
 144

revolutionized the whole concept of access to justice in a way not known before to the

western system of jurisprudence… it is therefore necessary to evolve a new strategy by

relaxing this traditional rule of standing in order that justice may become available to the

lowly and the lost”. R.S. Pathak J., while agreeing with the directions proposed by

Bhagwati, J. in Bandhu Mukthi Morcha v. Union of India78 expressed his views, “In

public interest litigation, the role held by Court is more assertive than in traditional

actions”. M.N. Venkatachaliah, J, speaking for the Bench in Sheela Barse v. Union of

India,79 has brought out the distinction between private litigation and public interest

litigation in his words,80 in public interest litigation, unlike traditional dispute resolution

mechanism, there is no determination or adjudication of individual rights. While in the

ordinary conventional adjudication the party structure is merely bi-polar and the

controversy pertains to the determination of the legal consequences of past events and the

remedy is essentially linked to and limited by the logic of the array of the parties. In a

public interest action the proceedings cut across and transcend these traditional forms and

inhibitions. The compulsion for the judicial innovation of the technique of a public

interest action is the constitutional promise of a social and economic transformation to

usher in an egalitarian social order and a welfare state. The ‘rights’ of those who bring

the action on behalf of the others must necessarily be subordinate to the ‘interests’ of

those for whose benefit the action is brought. The grievance in a public interest action,

78
(1984) 3 SCC 161: 1984 SC 802, 841: (1984) 2 SCR 67, 159.
79
(1988) 4 SCC 226: AIR 1988 SC 2211.
80
In a public interest litigation, unlike traditional dispute resolution mechanism, there is no determination
or adjudication of individual rights. While in the ordinary conventional adjudication the party structure is
merely bi-polar and the controversy pertains to the determination of the legal consequences of past events
and the remedy is essentially linked to and limited by the logic of the array of the parties. In a public
interest action the proceedings cut across and transcend these traditional forms and inhibitions. The
compulsion for the judicial innovation of the technique of a public interest action is the constitutional
promise of a social and economic transformation to usher in an egalitarian social order and a welfare State.
 145

generally speaking, is about the content and conduct of government action in relation to

the constitutional or statutory rights of a segment of society and in certain circumstances

the conduct of government policies.81

In country like India, recognized a departure from the strict rule of locus standi is

applicable to a person in private action and broadened the concept of liberalized the rule

of standing and thereby permitted a member of the public, having no personal gain or

oblique motive, to approach the Court for enforcement of the Constitutional or legal

rights of socially or economically disadvantaged persons. In defining the rule of locus

standi no ‘rigid litmus test’ can be applied since the broad contours of public interest

litigations are still developing but seemingly with divergent views on several aspects of

the concept of this newly-developed law discovering jurisdiction leading to a rapid

transformation judicial activism with far-reaching change both in the nature and form of

the judicial process. 82

In the process of liberalizing the rule of locus standi, the courts have gone to the

extent that even a prisoner in a jail can file the petition on behalf of inmates for violating

their rights. It is held by the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration,83

had accepted a letter addressed to it by one Sunil Batra, a prisoner from Tihar jail, Delhi

complaining that the jail warden had subjected another prisoner serving life term in the

81
Supra note 5, at p. 85.
82
Bhagavathi, J., observed that, “[t]oday a vast revolution is taking place in the judicial process; the theatre
of the law is fast changing and the problems of the poor are coming to the forefront. The Court has to
innovate new methods and new strategies for the purpose of providing access to justice to large masses of
people who are denied their basic human rights and to whom freedom and liberty have meaning. The only
way in which this can be done is by entertaining writ petitions and even letters from public-spirited
individuals seeking judicial redress for the benefit of persons who suffered a legal wrong or a legal injury
or whose constitutional or legal rights have been violated but who by reason of their poverty or socially or
economically disadvantaged position are unable to approach the Court for relief.” See, S.P. Gupta v. Union
of India AIR 1982 SC 149.
83
(1980) 3 SCC 488: AIR 1980 SC 1579.
 146

same jail to inhuman torture. The Court treated that letter as a writ petition by an

elaborate judgment, allowed the petition and issued certain direction for taking suitable

action against the erring official to the Ministry of Home Affairs and all State

Governments on the ground that Prison Justice has pervasive relevance.

Similarly, in Dr. Upendra Baxi (I) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.,84 the

Supreme Court entertained a letter sent by two professors of Delhi University seeking

enforcement of the Constitutional right of the inmates in a protective home at Agra who

were living in inhuman and degrading conditions in blatant violation of Article 21 of the

Constitution. The said letter was treated as a writ petition and the two professors were

permitted to maintain an action for an appropriate remedy.

The courts have now become quite liberal in the matter of standing when a person

suffers along with a rest of the community as a result of action of the government or any

other authorities.85 The workers have now been recognized to have locus standi to

question certain actions which may affect the working of the company in which they are

employed. In Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India,86 the trade

union of a public undertaking filed a petition in the Supreme Court to challenge the

proposed sale of some old plant and machinery by the management of the undertaking, as

the sale is not in accordance with law. Though the court dismissed the petition, yet it did

hold that the labour union had locus standi to maintain a petition challenging the said

sale. Chandrachud C.J., asserted that the “maintainability of a writ petition under Article

32 which is correlated to the existence and violation of a fundamental right is not always

84
(1983) 2 SCC 308.
85
M.P Jain. & S.N Jain., Principles of Administrative Law, 6th edn. (Nagpur: LexisNexis Butterworths,
Wadhwa, 2010), p. 562.
86
(1981) 1 SCC 568: AIR 1981 SC 344.
 147

to be confused with the locus to bring proceeding under Article 32”. Krishna Iyer J.,

speaking for himself and Bhagwati J., in a separate judgment though concurred with the

conclusion of the majority held that if a person belonging to an organization, which has

special interest in the subject-matter, has some concern deeper than that of a busybody,

he cannot be told off at the gates, whether the issue raised by him is justifiable, may still

remain to be considered and pointed out.87 In A.B.S.K. Sangh (Railway) v. Union of

India,88 the petitioner, an unorganized trade union of the railway workers is held to have

standing to challenge the constitutionality of the reservation policy in the railway

services. Justifying standing of an unorganized trade union, the court said that whether

“the petitioners belong to the recognized union or not, the fact remains that a large body

of a persons with a common grievance exists and they approach this court under Article

32”.

There are manifold reasons for justifying public interest litigation: it provides a

means to redress public wrongs which remained unremedied under the traditional rules of

locus standi even though the public person had the will and capacity to approach the

court; the individuals or groups suffering from adverse administrative action may not

themselves be in a position to; undertake litigation to vindicate their interests because of

poverty, ignorance, fear; the interests affected may be so diffused and fragmented that the

injury to each person may be very small and there may not be any incentive to one

individual to undertake court action to vindicate his own interest or grievance.89 In D.S.

87
“Public interest litigation is part of the process of participative justice and ‘standing’ in civil litigation of
that matter must have liberal reception at the judicial doorsteps”
88
AIR 1981 SC 298.
89
Supra note 85, at p. 566.
 148

Nakara v. Union of India,90 The government announced a liberalized pension scheme for

retired government servants but made it applicable to those who had retired after March

31, 1979. The old pensioners wanted to challenge the scheme under Article 14 but were

unable to do so individually because of the ‘labyrinths of legal judicial process, costly

and protracted’. The society’s locus standi was held to be ‘unquestionable’ as it was

seeking to enforce rights which might be available to a large number of old, infirm

retirees and also as it was a registered, non-profit, non-political and voluntary

organization consisting of public-spirited citizens, taking up the cause of ventilation of

legitimate public problems.

The rule of locus standi is liberalized not only in favor of natural persons but also

in favor of legal or artificial persons like companies or corporations. In earlier days the

judiciary was not inclined to allow the companies to file a petition to enforce the

fundamental rights but later it is liberalized. In State Trading Corporation v. Commercial

Tax Officer,91 Supreme Court observed that the Corporation being a company registered

under the Companies Act is not a citizen; therefore, it cannot enforce rights conferred

under Article 19 by filing petition under Article 32. The above mentioned principle is

reiterated in Tata Engg. Locomotive Co. v. State of Bihar.92 However, in Delhi Cloth and

General Mills v. Union of India,93 the Apex Court departed from its earlier decisions,94

and refused to throw out the petition of the Company at the threshold. The Court

observed that, the force of these decisions is much reduced by the decisions in R.C.

90
(1983) 2 SCC 305: AIR 1983 SC 130.
91
AIR 1963 SC 1181: (1964) 4 SCR 99.
92
AIR 1965 SC 40: (1964) 6 SCR 885.
93
(1983) 4 SCC 166: AIR 1983 SC 937.
94
State Trading Corpn. v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC 1811.
 149

Cooper v. Union of India 95 and Bennett Coleman Co. v. Union of India.96 The Court,

therefore held that the law regarding maintainability of writ petition by a company is in a

nebulous state, but the trend is in the direction of holding that the matter of fundamental

freedoms guaranteed under Article 19, the rights of shareholders and the company which

the shareholders have formed are rather co-extensive and the denial to one of the freedom

would be denial to the other. The Court, therefore, observed that it is time to put an end to

this controversy but in the state of law and opined that the petitions should not be thrown

out at the threshold. The Court found additional reason for this view that denial of

complaint is of denial of equality before law as guaranteed under Article 14. This case

would, therefore, indicate a new advancement in law of locus standi.

It is only in the clearest cases of general affectation of the rights of the community

at large, or a wide variety or cross-section of a people that the court will extend its

assistance by entertaining a public interest litigation so as to avoid any social or general

mischief having due regard to the concept of justice. In this context the judiciary

entertained the public interest litigation to protect the interest of the general public by

liberalizing the principle of locus standi. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram

Oleum Gas)97, a petition was filed as public interest litigation raising seminal questions

concerning true scope and ambit of Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution, the principles

and norms for determining the liability of large enterprises engaged in manufacture and

sale of hazardous products, the basis on which damages in case of such liability should be

quantified and whether such large enterprises should be allowed to continue to function

in thickly populated areas and if permitted, what measure must be taken for the purpose

95
(1970) 1 SCC 248: AIR 1970 SC 564.
96
(1972) 2 SCC 788: AIR 1973 SC106: (1973) 2 SCR 757.
97
(1980) 2 SCC 276: AIR 1987 SC 965.
 150

of reducing to a minimum the hazards to the workmen and the community living in the

neighborhood. The Court expressed its appreciation for the bold initiative taken by the

petitioner in bringing the public interest litigation before the Court. The petitioner has

rendered valuable service to the community by bringing this public interest litigation and

he has produced before the court considerable material hearing on issues arising in the

litigation. Though lone and single, he has fought a valiant battle against a giant enterprise

and achieved substantial success, the court observed.

Supreme Court under Article 32(1) is free to invent any procedure appropriate for

the particular purpose of the proceeding, namely, enforcement of Fundamental Rights

and under Article 32(2) the court has the implicit power to issue whatever directions,

orders or writs that may be appropriate in a given case. In this process the Court has all

incidental and ancillary powers including the power to forge new remedies and new

strategies designed to enforce the Fundamental Rights particularly in case of the poor and

the disadvantaged who are denied their basic human rights and for whom freedom and

liberty have no meaning.

In Ram Kumar Misra v. State of Bihar,98 the Court appreciated the public interest

litigation and promoted the same. The decision of the Supreme Court in State of

Himachal Pradesh v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College99 is a landmark in the

history of development of public interest litigation in regard to the liberalization of rule of

locus standi, where in by treating a letter as a writ, the Court, for the first time,

demarcated areas within which this strategy should operate.100 The principle of the above

98
(1984) 2 SCC 451: AIR 1984 SC 1069.
99
(1985) 3 SCC 169: AIR 1985 SC 910.
100
“It is now settled law that the Court under Article 32 and the High Court’s under Article 226 of the
Constitution can treat a letter as a writ petition and take action upon it. The court makes it clear that it is not
 151

decision is further reiterated in State of H.P. v. Umed Ram Sharma,101 and Chaitanya

Kumar v. State of Karnataka.102

D.C. Wadhaw v. State of Bihar103 is another landmark case in the history of

public interest litigation. The petitioner, a Professor of Political Science, had done

research in the manner of issuing Ordinance by the Governor of State of Bihar. The Court

seems to have accepted his research work as evidence of his being deeply interested in

ensuring proper implementation of constitutional provisions and, therefore, having

sufficient interest to maintain the writ petition. The Court further observed that even a

member of public has locus standi, as it is the right of every citizen to insist that he

should be governed by laws made in accordance with Constitution and not laws made by

the executive in violation of constitutional provisions. The observation of the Court

makes one to infer that the doctrine of sufficient interest which was so far interpreted to

include the general interest of every member of public seems to have been given up.104

Relaxation of the strict rule of locus standi became essential to provide adequate

justice to those members of public whose interests are affected. It is a departure from the

traditional practice that only a person aggrieved can have a standing in the court. ‘Public

every letter which may be treated as a writ petition by the Supreme Court or the High Court. It is only
where a letter is addressed by an aggrieved person or by a public-spirited individual or a social action group
for enforcement of the constitutional or legal rights of a person in custody or of a class or group of persons
who by reason of poverty, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position find it difficult to
approach the court for redress that the Supreme Court or the High Court would be justified, may bound to
treat the letter as a writ petition. It is highly-effective weapon in the armoury of the law for reaching social
justice to the common man”.
101
(1986) 2 SCC 68: AIR 1986 SC 847.
102
(1986) 2 SCC 594: AIR 1986 SC 825.
103
(1987) 1 SCC 378: AIR 1987 SC 579.
104
“Of course, if any particular ordinance was being challenged by petitioner he may not have the locus
standi to challenge it simply as a member of public unless some legal right or interest of his is violated or
threatened by such ordinance, but here what petitioner, as member of the public, is complaining of is, a
practice which is being followed by the State of Bihar by re promulgating the ordinances from time to time
without their provisions being enacted into Acts of the legislature. It is clear for vindication of public
interest that petitioner has filed this writ petition and he must, therefore, be held to be entitled to maintain
his writ petition.”
 152

interest’ or ‘Social interest’ which were the prime motivating factors seem to have

importance and courts are now promoting litigation pro bono publico or for the benefit of

the public. R.M. Sahai, J., in Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa105, while

writing his separate opinion, referred ‘Public spirited Citizens’ as having faith in rule of

law and a person entitled to move the court.106 Therefore, it may appear that the nature of

public injury has become more important than the person bringing the same to the notice

of the court for correction. Recently the Supreme Court in Sub-Committee on Judicial

Accountability v. Union of India,107 has reaffirmed its decision in Judges Transfer108 to

uphold the locus standi of the Sub-Committee and the Supreme Court Bar Association to

activate its process to prevent a sitting Judge of the Court from acting judicially during

the pendency of impeachment proceedings against him. In Jayalalitha v. Government of

T.N.109, it was held that any taxpayer in the State has a right to challenge misuse or

improper use any public property by anyone, including the political party in power.

In public interest litigations the law has marched like a Pegasus to override the

technical fetters relating to liberalizing the rule of locus standi. Even High Courts can

also protect the rights of common person through public interest litigations by liberalizing

the rule of locus standi, this is elaborated in the case of M.P. Human Rights Commission

105
(1991) 4 SCC 54: AIR 1991 SC 1902.
106
“Law has veered round from genuine grievance against order affecting prejudicially to sufficient interest
in the matter. The rise in exercise of power by the executive and comparative decline in proper and
effective administrative guidance is forcing citizens to espouse challenges with public interest flavor. It is
too late in the day, therefore, to claim that the petition filed by the inhabitants of a locality whose park was
converted into a nursing-home had no cause to invoke equity jurisdiction of the High Court. In fact, public-
spirited citizens having faith in rule of law are rendering great social and legal service by espousing cause
of public nature. They cannot be ignored or overlooked on technical or conservative yardstick of the rule of
locus standi or absence of personal loss or injury.”
107
(1992) 4 SCC 699: AIR 1992 SC 320, para 65.
108
Supra note 15.
109
(1999) 1 SCC 53.
 153

v. State of M.P.,110 where seven people lost their eyesight in an eye camp, the State of

Madhya Pradesh challenged the locus standi of the petitioner which was Human Rights

Commission. According to the respondent the petitioner did not have a locus standi to

canvass the case and the aggrieved should fight out the litigation in the appropriate legal

forum. Rejecting the objection it was held that Human Rights Commission was formed

with a different purpose.111 “ The fact that the Human Rights Commission has knocked at

the doors of the Court to agitate the cause of the anguished persons, the Court cannot shut

its eyes to the factual scenario that has emerged and ask the affected parties to file

appropriate application before any other legal forum for obtaining compensation.”

Now it can be safely said that the petitioners do have locus standi to file the

petition through they cannot be described as aggrieved parties or affected parties.112

PIL at the behest of an organization or a group of individuals, who have no personal gain

or private motive or any other oblique consideration except to see that or public injury

does not take place and to prevent or annul executive acts and omissions which are

violative of the Constitution or the law, would be maintainable.113 Once again the rule of

liberalization of locus standi is reiterated in B. Singh v. Union of India,114

110
AIR 2003 M.P. 17.
111
“If the objects and reasons of the statute and other provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993 are kept in view it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that commission cannot canvass the
cause of the person who have lost their eyes. The plea in regard to the locus standi of the petitioner is in the
realm of hyper technicality”.
112
Parent -Teacher Assn., Maharaja’s College v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 Ker 209. The Calcutta High
Court has reaffirmed it in State v. Union of India, it was observed as follows: “Thus when even a public-
spirited person or association not having normally locus standi to move a petition can be allowed to move a
public interest litigation in public interest for vindication and protection of the constitutional or legal right
of a determinate and oppressed class unable to approach the Court”.
113
“Public Interest Litigation, as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian Judicial process in 1970. It will not be
incorrect to say that it is primarily the Judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it.
At that stage it was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the people who were
poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were
require to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversarial in nature and was to be cooperative and collaborative effort
of the parties and the court so as to secure justice for the poor and the weaker sections of the community who were not
in a position to protect their won interest. Public Interest Litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what
 154

“A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of
Public Interest Litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the
court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of
statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or political motive or any oblique
consideration. A writ petitioner who comes to the court for relief in public
interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but
also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. The Court must not allow
its process to be abused for oblique consideration by masked phantoms who
monitor at times from behind.”

Initially PIL was invoked mostly in cases connected with the relief to the people

and the weaker sections of the society and in areas where there was violation of human

rights under Article 21. With the passage of time; petitions have been entertained in other

spheres. Prof. S.B. Sathe has summarized the extent of the jurisdiction which has now

been exercised in the following words.

“PIL, may, therefore, be described as satisfying one or more of the following

parameters. These are not exhaustive but merely descriptive.

i. Where the concerns underlying a petition are not individualist but are shared

widely by a number of people (bonded labour, under trial prisoners, prison

inmates);

ii. Where the affected persons belong to the disadvantaged sections of society

(women, children, bonded labour, unorganized labour, etc.);

iii. Where judicial law making is necessary to avoid exploitation (inter-country

adoption, the education of the children of prostitutes);

iv. Where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of the sanctity of

democratic institution (independence of judiciary, existence of grievances

redressal forums);

words themselves said, viz., litigation in the interest of the public”. BALCO Employess’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of
India, (2002) 2 SCC 333. AIR 2002 SC 350.
114
(2004) 3 SCC 363 at 367.
 155

v. Where administrative decisions relating to development are harmful to the

resources such as air or water.”115

4.3.2 Advantages of Liberalization of rule of Locus Standi

The problem of strict interpretation of term locus standi came to light in the wake

of States taking over an ever-increasing role in socio-economic fields with its

concomitant duties and obligations of public nature. The narrow interpretation of the law

related to locus standi leads to some consequences. Firstly, there may not be anyone

having standing to challenge and administrative action and thus the administrative

authority concerned may merrily continue its wrongful action without fear of anyone

challenging it in the court. The problem arises when public wrong is committed in the

sense that a law is enacted which is of doubtful constitutional validity or an

administrative act of omission or commission is unlawful, and, or productive of public

injury or mischief or injury without affecting any private right or interest as in traditional

private law litigation. Secondly, in a country like India, because of poverty, ignorance,

illiteracy and fear, the poor are unable to seek redress of their grievances, they are unable

to seek access to the courts not because the doors of courts are technically closed to them

but because they are themselves not financially sound to do so and therefore, they

continue to suffer the wrong. The philosophy, in common, for the liberalization of

principle of locus standi giving rise to the dynamics of PIL which leads to some of the

advantages may be categorized as under —

115
S.P. Sathe Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits, Oxford University
Press, 2005 edition. Quoted by Mamta Rao, in Public Interest Litigation Legal Aid and Lok Adalats, 3rd
edn. (New Delhi: Eastern Book Company, 2010), pp. 101 - 109.
 156

4.3.2.1 Creating Awareness among the Masses

Public Interest Litigation is a part of legal aid movement which is intended to

bring justice within the reach of the poor masses who constitute the low visible area in

the country. Thus, through Public Interest Litigation the courts try to fulfill a

constitutional obligation that, the large group of people belonging to the deprived and

exploited sections of humanity may be able to realize and enjoy the socio-economic

rights conferred on them.

4.3.2.2 Low Cost litigation

It is an unclothed truth that due to high cost of litigation a majority of masses

are deprived their rights of access to courts and courts become a medium for enforcing

rights of people born with a “golden spoon” in their mouth. It is often satirically stated

that the courts are open to people with golden keys. The Public Interest Litigation extends

the benefit of the system to the poor and the indigent, most of whom are not even aware

of their rights.

4.3.2.3 Social Justice

By liberalization of the rule of standing a large number of people belonging to

the deprived and the exploited sections of humanity are able to realize and enjoy their

basic human and fundamental rights. These rights become meaningful instead of

remaining mere empty hopes. It is also essential for the rule of law to wean the people

away from the lawless streets and win them for the court of law.

4.3.2.4 Resolving of public injuries and avoiding number of litigation

In modern welfare state, individual rights and duties are giving way to

collective rights and duties of classes or groups of persons. For example, the discharge of
 157

effluents into a river or emission of noxious gas affects the entire public resulting in

public injury. As the cost of litigation has become expensive, there is a growing tendency

to fight for a common cause or grievance with a strong voice

4.3.2.5 A Responsible Government

By PIL it is possible to effectively police the corridors of power and prevent

violation of law. Therefore, any member of public acting pro bono publico and having

sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of public wrong or injury.116

In PIL an issue under the colour of public interest or of the claim or concern to

represent public interest will not be recognized for deciding the locus standi.117 The

concepts of “standing” and “aggrieved person” for invocation of justice delivery system

stand substituted by the principle of “litigational competence” in PIL. The characteristic

of public interest action with its foundation in the Constitution, and as a tool of citizen’s

participation for achieving the constitutional goals calls for a distinct and flexible

principle of litigational competence.118 The competence of the person or persons

invoking public interest judicial intervention is determined generally with reference to the

nature of the issue, matter or concern raised the nature of infringement of rights or

interests, and the relevance, fitness, or genuineness of the person with reference to the

above factors.119

116
Supra note 5, at pp. 67-68.
117
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 28: AIR 2006 SC 1774.
118
Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa (1991) 4 SCC 54: AIR 1991 SC 1902: Union Carbide
Corporation v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584: AIR 1992 SC 248: Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa,
(1993) 2 SCC 746: AIR 1993 SC 1960.
119
Supra note 19, at p. 47.
 158

4.3.3 Limitations

PIL has, however, led to new problems which are as follows,120 such as an

unanticipated increase in the workload of the superior courts, lack of judicial

infrastructure to determine factual matters, gap between the promise and reality, abuse of

process, friction and confrontation with fellow organs of the government, and dangers

inherent in judicial populism.

4.3.3.1 Workload on Superior Courts

One major rationale extended by the courts supporting public interest litigation

is its usefulness in serving public interest. It is doubtful, however, if public interest

litigation is still wedded to that goal only. In the past five years almost any issue is

presented to the court in the guise of public interest because of the allurements that the

public interest litigation jurisprudence offers (inexpensive, quick response, high impact

and no procedural trappings). Therefore, the courts are now over loaded with number of

cases. Moreover, there are voices amongst people suggesting that public interest litigation

is being misused by people who agitate private grievances in the garb of public interest

and seek publicity rather than espousing public causes.121

4.3.3.2 Lack of Infrastructure

There may be a need to establish new infrastructures to deal with PIL. In India,

for example, there is a huge burst of this form of litigation. More than 23,000 PIL letters

were registered in Court over a fifteen-month period between 1987 and 1988. In

response, the Court established an internal ‘PIL Cell’ administrative unit, to process these

120
Surya Deva, “Public Interest Litigation in India: A Critical Review”, C.J.Q., Vol. 28, Issue 1, 2009, p.
33.
121
Public Interest Litigation or Participatory Jurisdiction: The Flip Side, http://www.scbap.com/docs/
public%20interest%20litigation%20by%20Mr.%20Ashtar%20Ausaf%20Ali.pdf, Accessed, on January19,
2015.
 159

cases. The cell reviews PIL petitions, routes the purely local petitions to similar cells

established by the High Courts of the states, retains the petitions of national importance,

appoints pro bono counsel, and supervises the initial fact-finding process. In appropriate

cases, the matter is referred to the Court for interim relief.122 This requires huge

additional staff, offices and other supporting instruments but the reality is that same staff

has to handle these additional work which is hampering the quality work of PIL.

4.3.3.3 Abuse of Process

The credibility of PIL process is now adversely affected by the criticism that

the judiciary is overstepping the boundaries of its jurisdiction and that it is unable to

supervise the effective implementation of its orders. It has also been increasingly felt that

PIL is being misused by the people agitating for private grievance in the clutches of

public interest and seeking publicity rather than espousing public cause.

4.3.3.4 Friction and Confrontation with Organs of Government

PIL has made the Executive and the Legislators accountable for their actions.

Their nearness to the people generates high expectations from the public and attracts

sharp criticism whenever their actions do not follow the expected lines. The common

citizen feels that the administration has become so apathetic and non-performing that they

have no other option except to approach the judiciary to redress their grievances. It is

under this situation that the judiciary has taken an activist approach. Judicial activism has

flourished in India and acquired enormous legitimacy with the Indian public. However,

this activist approach by the judiciary is bound to create friction and tension with the

other organs of the state. Such tension is natural and to some extent desirable

122
Gurdial Singh Nijar, Public Interest Litigation: A Matter of Justice An Asian Perspective, available at
http://www. aseanlawassociation .org/9GAdocs/Malaysia.pdf, Accessed, on January19, 2015.
 160

4.3.3.5 Judicial populism

Judges are human beings, but it would be unfortunate if they admit PIL cases

on account of raising an issue that is popular in the society. Conversely, the desire to

become people’s judges in a democracy should not hinder admitting PIL cases which

involve an important public interest but are potentially unpopular. The fear of judicial

populism is not merely academic and this is clear from the observation of Dwivedi J., in

Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala123, ‘‘the court is not chosen by the people and is

not responsible to them in the sense in which the House of People is. However, it will

win for itself a permanent place in the hearts of the people and augment its moral

authority if it can shift the focus of judicial review from the numerical concept of

minority protection to the humanitarian concept of the protection of the weaker section of

the people”.124

4.4 Conclusion

Justice – social, economic and political is laid down in the Preamble as guiding

principle of the Constitution. Social justice is the main plank on which constitutional

edifice is built. In fact, justice is the most positive aspect of social and political

philosophy. The country’s primary concern was the secularization and democratization of

Indian society and polity as a prerequisite for dispensing justice to one and all.

In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India.125

As a natural consequence of the liberalization of ‘locus standi’ rule and the

increasing willingness of the judiciary to render remedial justice to the weaker sections,

123
AIR 1973 SC 1461.
124
Pritam Kumar Ghosh, “Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation in India”, Galgotias Journal of
Legal Studies, Vol., No.1, 2013, p. 90.
125
AIR 1983 SC 130.
 161

there was a flood of PIL cases in the Supreme Court and High Courts. These cases

provided rare insights into the working and the thinking of the court and the judges who

preside over it. An analytical perusal of public interest litigation cases before the

Supreme Court and High Courts shows that the courts have been really very liberal in

granting ‘standing’ to persons coming from different fields. It is apparent that the courts

are more concerned with the ‘kinds of issues’ raised than with the persons bringing those

cases to the courts. This liberal trend is all the more apparent form the fact that courts,

especially the Supreme Court, have admitted the letters, postcards, telegrams, and even

newspaper items as writ petitions under Article 32 of Indian Constitution. PIL has an

important role to play in the justice system; it affords a ladder to justice to the

disadvantaged sections of society, some of which might not even be well-informed about

their rights. Furthermore, it provides an avenue to enforce diffused rights for which either

it is difficult to identify an aggrieved person or where aggrieved persons have no

incentives to knock at the doors of the courts.