Constitutional Law Ii Research Papaer

A CRITICAL STUDY ON “LOCUS STANDI” WITH CASE ANALYSIS
By
Name of the Student: ANUSHKA BOLUSANI
Roll No.: 20LLB015
Semester: IV
Name of the Program: 5 Year B.A., LL.B.(Hons.)
Name of the Faculty Member: PROF. MR. A. NAGESWARA RAO
Date of Submission:
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYAPRASTHA “, SABBAVARAM,
VISAKHAPATNAM – 531035, ANDHRA PRADESH
CERTIFICATE
“I, Anushka Bolusani, hereby declare that this project titled “A CRITICAL STUDY ON
“LOCUS STANDI” WITH CASE ANALYSIS” submitted by me is an original work
undertaken by me, I have duly acknowledged all the sources and references from which ideas
and extracts have been sourced. This project is free from plagiarism and does not utilize any
unfair means whatsoever.”
(ANUSHKA BOLUSANI)
20LLB015
Semester IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1. ABSTRACT
2. SYNOPSIS
3. LOCUS STANDI
4. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS AN EXEMPTION TO THE LOCUS STANDI
RULE
5. CASE LAWS
6. CONCLUSION
1. ABSTRACT:
“Any party who has been harmed or injured by a private individual or the government can
file a lawsuit in our judicial system. It is critical to show that the individual who is
approaching the court has been injured or that his legal rights have been infringed throughout
this procedure. To put it another way, there must be a sufficient link between the harm and
the individual who approaches the court. This is known as the "Locus Standi" doctrine,
because it assures that only genuine parties appear in court. However, in recent years, the
norm of locus standi has been modified, allowing a concerned citizen to petition the court on
behalf of the impoverished and oppressed. 1
The general rule is that everyone whose basic right has been infringed has the right to go to
court. The Supreme Court can only use its powers to enforce basic rights under Indian
Constitution Article 32. Standing, also known as locus standi, is the legal term describing a
party's capacity to show a sufficient relationship to and injury from the law or conduct
challenged to justify their involvement in the case. Otherwise, the court will determine that
the plaintiff "lacks standing" to pursue the lawsuit, and the case will be dismissed without a
hearing on the merits. However, public interest litigations gave rise to the notion of public
interest standing, which is a way of broadening the locus standi.
Objectivity, forensic expertise, procedural gamesmanship, and socio-legal awareness were all
required in public interest litigation.
Many of the individual rights listed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights are recognised as fundamental rights in India's constitution. The right to life, equality,
freedom of speech and expression, and the right to seek judicial recourse before the Supreme
Court and India's 21 High Courts for the enforcement and protection of these rights are
among them.”2
1
Thakur Y, “Locus Standi: Meaning and Essential Ingredients of Locus Standi” (Legal Study
MaterialDecember 6, 2021) <https://legalstudymaterial.com/locus-standi-meaning-and-
essential-ingredients-of-locus-standi/> accessed June 22, 2022
2
Halde MR, “Locus Standi Has Widening the Scope of Public Interest Litigation”
(SSRNSeptember 28, 2011)
<https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=75410300900406412610709011802410
2111121055086045016032125103093098082071089114114076096031059124007061
0000270101150941240970720240410450400230090141260901131240821190660050
7908808908408306512507102309409300311708312311610310809002107009507311
5067029125&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE> accessed June 22, 2022
2. SYNOPSIS:
I. INTRODUCTION:
“Litigation in India used to be a costly process. The only persons who sought legal action to
safeguard or enforce their rights were the wealthy. In order to get their issues and complaints
handled, the aggrieved party would file a lawsuit or take legal action against the perpetrator.
Individuals choose litigation as a result of their limited finances.
There was little to no attempt taken to alleviate or even address the frustrations and worries of
certain groups of individuals, or even the broader public. In these cases, the court, as the
protector of citizens' fundamental rights, plays a crucial role. The judiciary has the power to
evaluate legislation and administrative decisions or acts to ensure that constitutional rights are
not violated.
When a citizen's constitutional rights are violated, he or she can seek remedies by filing a writ
petition with the Supreme Court or a High Court. As simple as this may appear, the lengthy
and complex nature of litigation makes access to justice difficult, if not impossible, for the
poor and disadvantaged.
To make justice more accessible to all people, the Supreme Court created the concept of
Public Interest Litigation. PILs were filed by people from all walks of life in order to have
their basic rights enforced by the courts. On behalf of the general public's interests, social
welfare groups, social activists, and any public-spirited individual may approach the courts.”3
II. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

a. To understand the concept and relevance of Locus Standi in the legal system.
b. To emphasize on Public Interest Litigation as an exception to Locus Standi
c. To enhance the explanation of concept with relevant case laws.
III. SCOPE OF THE STUDY:
The paper sticks to the concept of Locus Standi, Public Interest Litigation and relevant case
laws to substantiate the concept.
IV. TYPE OF RESEARCH:
3
“Concept of Locus Standi” (ilms.academy) <https://www.ilms.academy/blog//concept-of-
locus-standi> accessed June 22, 2022
This research is critical and explanatory in nature.
V. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
This study is based on the doctrinal method of research.
VI. RESEARCH QUESTION:
Whether the introduction of PIL has brought about a change in the legal system?
3. LOCUS STANDI:
“The Latin maxim "Locus Standi" is made up of two words: "locus" means "location," and
"standi" means "right to bring action." As a result, it refers to the right to appear in court or
the right to file a lawsuit. Before addressing the court, one must demonstrate his legal
competence, according to this aphorism. It indicates that a person can only go to court if his
or her own interests are jeopardised or if he or she is injured. One of the core concepts of the
adversarial legal system is this maxim. The notion of locus standi is referenced in India's civil
procedure law, 1908, under Order 7 Rule 11. The plaintiff or appellant must first establish his
locus standi before proceeding to trial. If the condition of locus standi is not met, the court
may dismiss the whole case, regardless of its merits.
Example: In a business deal between A and B, A acted falsely, causing B to incur a massive
loss of 100 crore. Only A now has standing to go to court since his legal right has been
infringed. 4
This rule provides that an individual's action will not be upheld in court unless he has been
personally damaged or is offended by the act he is disputing. When an environmentalist
presents a court with an environmental concern, the court concentrates on the identity of the
individual who brings the case, rather than the larger public interest, the purposes of
environmental law, the need for distributive justice, and participatory democracy. The
following inquiries are made: What is his name? Is he personally touched by it? Is he
personally invested enough in the problem at hand?
"Locus" (plural loci) is a Latin word that signifies "place." The legal right to launch a lawsuit
is known as "locus standi," which is Latin for "place to stand." It is a party's capacity to
4
persuade the court that the challenged legislation or conduct has a sufficient relationship to it
and causes enough harm to justify the party's participation in the case. The United States
Supreme Court has ruled that -In essence, the question of locus standi is whether the plaintiff
has the right to have the court decide the case's merits or particular issues.
Injury: The plaintiff must have experienced or will soon suffer injury - an infringement of a
legally protected tangible and particularised interest. Actual or immediate damage must be
definite and real, not abstract. This harm might be both financial and non-financial.
Causation: There must be a causal link between the harm and the alleged behaviour, such that
the injury can be traced back to the defendant's challenged activity and not to the independent
action of a third party not before the court.
Redressability: A favourable court judgement must be likely, not just hypothetical, in order to
rectify the harm. According to tradition, an individual whose constitutional or legal right has
been violated may seek justice under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The Locus
Standi provision has lately been liberalised by the Supreme Court. Even if that person or class
is unable to claim the High Court's jurisdiction owing to poverty or other social economic
handicap, the Court now authorises public-spirited persons to submit a writ petition for the
protection of every other person's or class's constitutional and statutory rights. The Indian
Constitution's Article 226 has a broader reach than Article 32. Article 226 gives the aggrieved
parties the ability to sue the High Court for violations of both their basic and legal rights.
However, under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, a person can only go to the Supreme
Court if their fundamental rights have been violated.”5
4. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS AN EXEMPTION TO THE LOCUS

STANDI RULE:
The rate of poverty and unemployment has increased dramatically since independence. Many
persons lacked the financial resources to contact the court. Others took advantage of them,
and their legal rights were severely harmed. The expense of litigation was extremely
expensive, and individuals avoided going to court owing to a lack of funds and illiteracy. As
5
a result, a new idea of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was born to alleviate the legal burden.
It was the product of judicial activism directed at achieving genuine justice.
The exact definition of "public interest litigation" is "litigation in the general public interest."
In the case of Janata Dal v. Chaudhary, 1992, the Supreme Court defined the phrase "public
interest litigation." According to the court, a PIL is a legal action initiated in a court of law on
behalf of those whose legal rights have been infringed but who are unable to approach the
court owing to their economic or social disadvantage.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a type of lawsuit that can be brought by anybody who is
concerned about the public good. A lawsuit is filed. To make amends for a public injustice or
damage. The individual can submit the PIL in any case where pollution, terrorism, road
safety, or hazardous construction threatens the public's interest. It is a potent tool against
work that infringes on Indian citizens' Human Rights or fundamental rights. The PIL was
filed in order to safeguard Indian citizens. Public interest lawsuit might be considered a basic
right granted to Indian citizens under the constitution to preserve their rights.
The definition of the term "public interest" Litigation is the process of defending the public
interest in court. It is the application of the law to safeguard the public's rights. PIL
guarantees citizens of India the right to equality. An individual or a group of people from the
public can file a PIL to prove that the public has been wronged or injured as a result of
private or government affairs. 6
Basically, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a type of lawsuit brought in court to safeguard
the public interest, such as pollution, terrorism, road safety, and construction hazards. Any
topic affecting the public's general interest can be investigated by filing a Public Interest
Litigation in a courtroom. To put it another way, public interest litigation implies. By filing a
petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution, or the Court of Magistrate under Sec. 133 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, any public-spirited citizen or public welfare interested citizen
can approach the court for a public cause or for the welfare of the public.
6
The idea of public interest litigation was first planted in India by Justice Krishna Iyer in
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha versus Abdul Thai in 1976. It was also started in Akhil Bharatiya
Shoshit Karmachari Sangh (Railway) v. Association of India, where an unregistered
relationship of labourers was allowed to establish a writ appeal under Art.32 of the
Constitution for the redressal of ordinary complaints. In Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union
v. Association of India, Justice Krishna Lyer highlighted the reasons for the advancement of
the Locus Standi test, as well as the prospect of 'Public Interest Litigation' blooming in S.P.
Gupta and others vs Association of India. 7
A public-spirited individual may employ this provision on behalf of socially or economically

vulnerable people who are unable to defend themselves. In public interest litigation, the rigid
Locus Standi rule that applies to private action is eased, and the courts have adopted a wide
norm in contemporary times. Any member of the public acting in good faith and with
substantial interest in initiating a claim for redress of a public wrong or damage, but not a
mere busybody or meddling intruder, may be given the right of Locus Standi: Because the
primary goal of Interest Litigation is to ensure that the Constitution or the law are followed to
the fullest extent possible in order to advance the cause of the community, disadvantaged
groups and individuals, or the public interest, anyone acting in good faith and with sufficient
intercession is allowed to do so.8
5. CASE LAWS:
A. S.P. Gupta v. President of India and Ors., 1981:
Facts:
“Various petitions were handled in the previous case, including substantial fundamental
issues about the organisation and movement of judges, as well as the legal executive's
autonomy. 9 One of the concerns highlighted was the legality of Central Government
7
“Public Interest Litigation and Judicial Activism in India” (Legal Service India - Law,
Lawyers and Legal Resources) <https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-7626-
public-interest-litigation-and-judicial-activism-in-india.html> accessed June 22, 2022
8
9
Lawsisto, “S.P. Gupta vs President of India and Ors., 1981: Lawsisto Legal News” (S.P.
Gupta vs President Of India And Ors., 1981 | Lawsisto Legal News)
instructions prohibiting the appointment of two adjudicators. The petitioners sought to expose
correspondence between the Law Minister, the Chief Justice of Delhi, and the Chief Justice
of India in order to develop their case.
In any case, under article 74(2) of the Indian Constitution, which states that the counsel
offered by the Council of Ministers to the President cannot be called into any court, and
segment 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that proof obtained from unpublished
authority records on state undertakings can't be given without the authorization of the top of
the concerned office, the state is protected against disclosure of these reports. According to
Section 162 of the Evidence Act, an observer called in to establish a record under the
supervision of a court must do so, and the court will decide any issues.
Judgement:
The Supreme Court of India denied the administration's argument for assurance against
disclosure and directed the Union of India to open the archives containing the
communication, in a circumstance chosen by Justice Bhagwati. These writ petitions, which
were filed in several High Courts and advanced to this Court under Article 139 of the
Constitution, pose questions of enormous protected significance affecting the legal
executive's freedom, and they have argued at length before this Court. An open and
successful participatory majority rule system necessitates general society's accountability and
access to facts about the legislature's operations. The public's view of government under an
open government ensures a pristine and stable structure and acts as a powerful check against
persecution, debasement, and power abuse or mistreatment.
The concept of open government is the direct transfer of the morally justifiable option to
know to the freedom to speak freely of discourse and articulation guaranteed by Article
19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. As a result, data disclosure on government operations
must be the standard, and secrecy must be the exception, legitimised only when the public
interest requires it.10 The Court held that while the counsel provided by the Council of
<https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/ODcxMw==/SP-Gupta-vs-President-Of-India-
And-Ors-1981> accessed June 22, 2022
10
Ministers to the President would be protected from legal scrutiny, the correspondence
between the Law Minister, the Chief Justice of Delhi, and the Chief Justice of India was not
protected simply because it was mentioned in the exhortation.
The Central Government's choice of arrangement and move may be questioned on just two
grounds: (1) there was no complete and viable advice between the Central Government and
the appropriate professionals, and (2) the choice was based on unnecessary reasons. The letter
in question would be relevant to each of these grounds, necessitating its disclosure.
The establishing of the case for assurance under the Evidence Act is in the public interest. In
light of these considerations, the Court must decide whether the release of a given report is in
the public interest. It must balance the public interest in the fair administration of justice
through disclosure against the public interest believed to be protected by nondisclosure, and
then decide whether the record should be guarded. Similarly, because SC decisions are
binding in other Indian courts, the choice becomes an authoritative or compelling point of
reference within its ward.
In this situation, it was revealed that the correspondence was not secure. It orchestrated the
appointment and relocation of judges, a topic of enormous public interest, and its disclosure
would not have been detrimental to the public interest. The fear of a poorly informed or
enraged public, or of political analysis, was inadequate to justify the correspondence's
insurance. After reviewing the communication, the Court decided that the Central
Government's request for non-arrangement was justified.
S.P.Gupta's statement: A seven-judge Supreme Court bench debated the issues of judicial
independence relating to the appointment and removal of judges, the appointment and
removal of Additional Judges of the High Court, the advantage of the Government against the
disclosure of State archives, and the scope of a legal audit of the President's forces.
While maintaining their right to do so, Justice P.N. Bhagwati decided on the issue of the
locus standi of the appealing to legal advisors who had challenged the Law Minister's
Circular and temporary expansions of Additional Judges on the grounds of assault on the
legal executive's autonomy. Even if said individual writes a letter supporting public reason,
the Court will respond quickly. 11
11
Many instances were grouped together in the current case, which arose from two groups of
writ petitions filed in various High Courts and appealed to the Supreme Court under Article
139-A because they involved ordinary problems of extraordinary recognised significance.
One petition was also filed with the Supreme Court. During the session, a few more
connected topics were brought and discussed. Each of the Judges delivered a different
verdict. The right to data, according to the Supreme Court of India, is enshrined in the right to
free speech and articulation. It also reduced the level of assurance from government records
expense exposure.”12
B. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar ... vs Union Of India And Others on 13

November, 1980
“The learned Attorney General, who appears on behalf of the Union of India, has raised a
preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ Petition on the ground that in the first
place, the petitioners have no locus standi to file the petition and secondly, that the impugned
sale does not violate any of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. We must decide this
objection before considering the contentions raised by Shri R. K. Garg on behalf of the
petitioners.”
“When a plant is shut down, as in this case, it has been, for reasons the merits of which we do
not propose to scrutinise, the workers employed in it are ordinarily thrown out of
employment. Assuming some patch-work arrangement to give lingering employment for
some time more were offered as a measure of alleviation, that certainly is not equal to the
steady and assured service in a public sector undertaking which is a Government company
owned entirely by the President of India. 13 Their economic fortunes and employment status
12
13
“Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar ... vs Union of India and Others on 13 ...”
<https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/1171702/?formInput=locus> accessed June 22,
2022
are affected by the amputation of a limb of the company. These workers have invoked the
jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution and sought to demolish through
the writ of this Court, both the decision to sell the plant on the score of obsolescence and the
dubious manner of sale which, in their submission, has resulted in colossal loss to the public
exchequer and, vicariously, to the citizenry of the country, including, a fortiori, the workers
in the enterprise.” “Two questions incidentally arise: Have the workers locus standi under
Art. 32, which is a special jurisdiction confined to enforcement of fundamental rights ? What,
if any, are the fundamental rights of workmen affected by the employer's sale of machinery
whose mediate impact may be conversion of permanent employment into precarious service
and eventual exit ? Lastly, but most importantly, where does the citizen stand, in the context
of the democracy of judicial remedies, absent an ombudsman? In the face of (rare, yet real)
misuse of administrative power to play ducks and drakes with the public exchequer,
especially where developmental expansion necessarily involves astronomical expenditure and
concomitant corruption, do public bodies enjoy immunity from challenge save through the
post mortem of parliamentary organs. What is the role of the judicial process, read in the light
of the dynamics of legal control and corporate autonomy ?” This juristic field is virgin but is
also heuristic challenge, so that law must meet life in this critical yet sensitive issue. The
active co-existence of public sector autonomy, so vital to effective business management, and
judicial control of public power tending to berserk, is one of the creative claims upon
functional jurisprudence.
“A pragmatic approach to social justice compels us to interpret constitutional provisions,

including those like Arts. 32 and 226, with a view to see that effective policing of the
corridors of power is carried out by the court until other ombudsman arrangements a problem
with which Parliament has been wrestling for too long-emerges. I have dwelt at a little length
on this policy aspect and the court process because the learned Attorney General challenged
the petitioner’s locus standi either qua worker or qua citizen to question in court the wrong
doings of the public sector although he maintained that what had been done by the
Corporation was both bona fide and correct.14”
14
2022
“Assuming that the Government-company has acted mala fide, or has dissipated public funds,
can a common man call into question in a court the validity of the action by invocation of
Arts. 32 or 226 of the Constitution.? Here, we come up on the crucial issue of access to
justice and the special limitations of Art. 32 which is the passport to this Court.”
“We have no doubt that in a competition between courts and streets as dispenser of justice,
the rule of law must win the aggrieved person for the law court and wean him from the
lawless street. In simple terms, locus standi must be liberalised to meet the challenges of the
times. Ubi just ibi remedium must be enlarged to embrace all interests of public-minded
citizens or organisations 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.”15
C. Union Of India And Another vs W.N. Chadha on 17 December, 1992:

“The above appeal is preferred before this Court challenging the judgment of the High Court
of Delhi dated 2nd September 1992 rendered in Criminal Writ No. 501/91 knocking down the
very registration of the First Information Report and all the proceedings arising thereon
including the issue of letters rogatory in the second round of the bout of this litigation.”
“The first round of the litigation came before this Court on an appeal preferred by Sh. H.S.
Chowdhary challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, Justice M.K. Chawla of the
High Court of Delhi dated 19th December, 1990 dismissing his petition on the ground that he
has no locus standi to file his petition and a few other appeals preferred by the Union of India
and some political parties which had been seriously litigated before this Court on the earlier
occasion and resulted in the pronouncement of an order dated 27th August 1991, giving only
the conclusions and the final judgment on 28th August 1992 vide Janta Dal v. H.S.
Chowdhary the decisions of which were rendered by this Bench.”16
15
2022
16
“Union of India and Another vs W.N. Chadha on 17 December, 1992”
<https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/1787029/?formInput=locus%20standi>
accessed June 22, 2022
“It was at this relevant time i.e. on 13th August, 1990 Shri H.S. Chowdhary, an Advocate
claiming to be the General Secretary of an Organisation named as Rashtriya Jan Parishad as a
public interest litigant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 1990 before the Special
Judge seeking certain prayers inclusive of not to issue letter rogatory on the request of the
CBI unless the allegations against the named persons are established and that no request for
freezing bank account be made to Swiss Government etc. The details of the prayers are given
in our judgments in and . The Special Judge, Shri V.S. Aggarwal dismissed the petition of
Shri H.S. Chaudhary on 18th August 1990 holding that he has no locus standi. Then the
Special Judge for the reasons mentioned in his order issued (1) Note of compliance and (2)
Amended Letter rogatory on August 21, 1990.”
“On being aggrieved by the order of Justice M.K. Chawla, H.S. Chaudhary preferred an
appeal challenging the findings of the High Court that he had no locus standi and the
appellant herein (Union of India) and several political parties such as Janata Dal, Communist
Party of India (Marxist) and Indian Congress (Socialist) preferred appeals canvassing the
correctness of the order of Justice M.K. Chawla taking suo moto cognizance and issuing
notice calling upon the CBI and the State to show cause as to why the proceedings initiated
on the strength of the FIR be not quashed. One independent writ petition was also filed for
the same relief as sought for by the political parties. This Court by its Order dated 27th
August, 1991 allowed the appeal of the Union of India and quashed the suo moto action of
the High Court but reserved the reasons to be given later on vide Janata Dal v. H.S.
Chowdhary . Thereafter, this Bench rendered its final judgment on 28th August, 1992 giving
the reasons in justification of its earlier order.” “In the final judgment, this Court confined the
question only with regard to the scope and object of public interest litigation and the suo
moto exercise and inherent powers of the High Court and ultimately held that H.S.
Chowdhary did not have any locus standi to challenge the veracity of the First Information
Report and the proceedings arising thereon and quashed the show cause notice issued to the
CBI and the State. However, in the earlier Order itself, we expressed our view as regards the
right of parties aggrieved by initiation of criminal proceedings to challenge the said
proceedings, in the following words:17
17
Finally, he requested this Court to pronounce the verdict as early as possible.”
“It may be mentioned in this connection that the first Bench presided over by the Chief
Justice while issuing notice on 4.9.1992 in this appeal also issued notice in Criminal M.P. No.
4999/92 seeking for leave to file a SLP by Shri Prashant Bhushan. There is a foot-note in the
order dated 4.9.92 reading "SLP filed by Mr. Prashant Bhushan shall also be put up along
with this petition.” “Apart from this petition two other unnumbered SLPs are also filed - (1)
by Shri George Fernandes through his counsel Prashant Bhushan; and (2) another by one Shri
Jaswant Singh through his counsel Ms. Kamini Jaiswal along with two Criminal M.P. Nos.
5201 and 5160 of 1992 seeking leave to file the special leave petitions. Mr. Shanti Bhushan,
the learned senior counsel who appeared in the unnumbered two SLPs filed by Prashant
Bhushan addressed this Court on the question of locus standi as both the SLPs are public
interest litigations. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, the learned senior counsel appeared in the
unnumbered SLP filed by Jaswant Singh and addressed his arguments. Both the learned
Counsel while addressing their arguments on locus standi of all the above three petitioners in
preferring their respective SLPs which are public interest litigations incidentally touched
upon the merits of the case and supplemented the submissions of the Additional Solicitor
General.” “Mr. Jethmalani waxed eloquent on the disastrous consequences that are likely to
follow due to the quashing of the F.I.R. and the entire other proceedings and characterised the
impugned judgment as being a judicial transgression and castration of the criminal law of this
land. He said that the allegations made in the FIR are very serious and outrageous in nature
and the circumstances veering the case bear chilling evidence and that if such evidence is
buried fathoms deep pursuant to the impugned judgment, the people of this nation who are
having and reposing great trust and confidence in judiciary will lose their faith in the entire
system of judicial administration. 18” “He continues to state that the repetitive attempts of the
respondent to frustrate and filibuster the proceedings of the prosecution - firstly through H.S.
Chowdhary as his proxy raising the same issues and secondly through his Pairokar after
having become unsuccessful in his first attempt are nothing but a ploy to escape the clutches
of law. According to him the respondent residing in United Arab Emirates has committed
18
serious violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act and Income Tax
Act by keeping his account in foreign country and that the FIR contains sufficient allegations
that the respondent had received huge amount for himself and for passing off to the public
servants, and therefore, in order to purify the stream of justice, the impugned judgment of the
High Court has to be quashed. The learned Counsel has further urged that the respondent on
the pretext of false reasons of health is purposely residing in United Arab Emirates with
which country there is no extradition treaty and to which country Indian summons and
warrants cannot reach and therefore, the respondent who is an out-law is not at all entitled to
the assistance of the law of this country.””19
D. Ghulam Qadir vs Special Tribunal & Ors on 3 October, 2001:

“Assailing the judgment impugned, Shri P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate, appearing for the
appellant has submitted that the said judgment is not sustainable and liable to be set aside on
the following grounds:-
(i) That neither the Custodian nor the allottee had any locus standi to challenge the order of
Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal passed in exercise of the powers vested in it under
Section 30-A of the Evacuee Property Act;
(ii) Accordingly, the learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the
allottee holding that they had no locus standi to challenge the order of the authorities under
the act;”
“There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where
the writ prayed is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is
the filing of a writ petition in public interest.20 The existence of the legal right of the
petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the
19
20
“Ghulam Qadir vs Special Tribunal & Ors on 3 October, 2001”
jurisdiction of the High Court under the aforesaid Article. The orthodox rule of interpretation
regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the court has undergone a sea-change with the
development of constitutional law in our country and the constitutional courts have been
adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dis-lodging the claim of a litigant
merely on hyper-technical grounds. If a person approaching the court can satisfy that the
impugned action is likely to adversely affect his right which is shown to be having source in
some statutory provision, the petition filed by such a person cannot be rejected on the ground
of his having not the locus standi. In other words, if the person is found to be not merely a
stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, he cannot be non-suited on the
ground of his not having the locus standi.
“It may further be noticed in the instant case, that aggrieved by the order of the custodian
deleting the property in favour of the appellant herein, the allottees had filed a revision
petition before the Custodian General in which the appellant and the Custodian, Evacuee
Property had been arrayed as party-respondents which was accepted vide orders of the
Custodian General dated 11.2.1989 (Annexure P-11). Before the Custodian General, the
appellant herein had raised an objection regarding the locus standi of the allottee. The
objection was over-ruled by the Revisional Authority vide its order dated 9.4.1988. The
Custodian General further invoked suo moto jurisdiction vesting in him under Section 30 of
the Act and allowed the allottees an opportunity to argue the case. The counsel of the
allottees was further directed to assist the authority for proper adjudication of the claim
preferred by the appellant keeping in view the interests of the evacuees.” “After the revision
petition was allowed, the appellant herein preferred a further revision before the Jammu &
Kashmir Special Tribunal wherein besides Custodian General, all the tenants were impleaded
as party-respondents. In his revision petition, the appellant never objected to the right of the
allottees to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Custodian General. When, ultimately, the
order of the Custodian General, passed in favour of the allottee was set aside by the Tribunal,
the allottees filed the writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge holding that the allottees had no locus standi to file such a petition. 21 It appears
that the learned Single Judge ignored earlier judgments of the same High Court in Tej Ram
21
Vs. Custodian General and Ors. [AIR 1967 J & K 8) and Matwal Singh & Ors. v. Hon'ble
Minister Incharge Evacuee Property Deptt. & Ors. [1990 J&K Law Reporter 303].” Rejecting
such an objection, the High Court in Matwal Singh's case (Supra) dealt with the scheme of
the Act and Rules made thereunder and had held:
"The Act was enacted to provide for the administration of the evacuees' property in the State
and to protect it from being wasted or destroy. Chapter II of the Act deals with the
appointment of the authorities under the Act, the evacuee’s property and vesting thereof in
the custodian. Sec.8 provides that any person claiming any right to, or interest in, any
property which has become notified under Sec.6 as evacuee property, or in respect of which a
demand requiring surrender of possession has been made, may prefer a claim to the
Custodian on the ground that the property was not the evacuee property or that his interest in
the property has not been affected by the provisions of the Act.” “Under sub-sec.(2) of Sec.8
of the Act, the application has to be preferred within 30 days from the date on which the
notification was issued or the demand requiring surrender of possession was made by the
Custodian. On receiving the application under sub-sec.(2), the Custodian is required to hold
an enquiry to take such evidence as may be produced and pass an order stating the reasons
therein either rejecting the application or allowing it wholly or in part. The rules have been
framed under the Act regulating the procedure for restoration or deletion of the property
under Sec.14 and Sec.8 of the Act besides the issuance of guidelines by the appropriate
authority in that behalf.” “According to the procedure, admittedly prevalent, a notification is
issued to the general public for filing objections to the claim made with respect to the evacuee
property within the time specified. the objection, as and when raised, is required to be
decided by the Custodian after holding enquiry in terms of sub-sec.(2) of Sec.8 of the Act.
The issuance of the notice to the general public for raising objections and resisting the claims
is intended mainly to protect the evacuee property from being wasted, destroyed or
wrongfully taken away on false pretext, pleas and concocted evidence. The nature of the
proceedings intended to be held while disposing of the claim petition are basically of quasi-
judicial nature requiring proper determination on the basis of the objections raised by any
person.22 The authorities under the Act must be happy and satisfied if some prudent citizens
22
come forward to resist the false pleas and claims preferred. The property of the evacuee has
to be protected till the Act remains in force and the normalcy restored in the State. The person
in possession of the property, therefore, has a right to resist the claim with respect to the
property in his occupation preferred by any other person either under Sec.8 or Sec.14 of the
Act. Once the person in occupation is held to be having a right to oppose the proposed action
resulting in his eviction, it cannot be said that he has no locus standi to file the petitioner in
this Court, if ultimately the order is passed against him by the authorities under the Act. In
this case also it is not disputed that the advertisement notice was issued in the DAILY
UJALA inviting objections from all and not debarring the petitioners herein from raising such
objections. When the authorities under the Act themselves gave the option to all persons
including the petitioners to raise objections it does not lie in their mouth subsequently to say
that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the order passed to their prejudice.” The
petitioner in the absence of the order of restoration or deletion have a statutory right to remain
in occupation of the leased property and cannot be evicted unless the existence of any of the
grounds specified under rule 14 framed under the Act, is proved. It may further be pointed
out that despite restoration of the property, an evacuee is not entitled to possession in all
cases, sec.14-A being one of the exceptions. The judgment of the Division Bench reported in
1984 KLJ 107 was, therefore, passed without reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court
and the earlier judgment of this Court and cannot be held to be a good law. The said
judgment being in conflict with the judgment of the Supreme Court, is non-existent and has
no effect on the present petition. The petitioners are, therefore, held entitled to file the present
petition being lessees in possession of the evacuee property. The authorities under the Act are
held under an obligation to issue notices to the lessees-in-possession of the evacuee property,
of the applications filed either under Sec.8 or Sec.14 of the Act."23
E. State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors on 18 January, 2010:
“In Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Others (2005) 5 SCC 136, the appointment of the
appellant as Auction Recorder was challenged. 24 The Court held that the scope of entertaining
23
24
“State of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors on ... - Indian Kanoon”
<https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/161999/?formInput=locus%20standi> accessed
June 22, 2022
a petition styled as a public interest litigation and locus standi of the petitioner particularly in
matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this Court in various cases.
The Court observed that before entertaining the petition, the Court must be satisfied about
In The Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Others AIR 1976 SC
1455, this Court made conscious efforts to improve the judicial access for the masses by
relaxing the traditional rule of locus standi.”
“In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Others AIR 1978 SC 1675, the Court departed
from the traditional rule of standing by authorizing community litigation. The Court
entertained a writ petition from a prisoner, a disinterested party, objecting to the torture of a
fellow prisoner. The Court entertained the writ after reasoning that "these 'martyr' litigations
possess a beneficent potency beyond the individual litigant and their consideration on the
wider representative basis strengthens the rule of law." Significantly, citing "people's
vicarious involvement in our justice system with a broad-based concept of locus standi so
necessary in a democracy where the masses are in many senses weak," the Court permitted a
human rights organization to intervene in the case on behalf of the victim.”
“In Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration AIR 1980 SC 1535, a prisoner sent a
telegram to a judge complaining of forced handcuff on him and demanded implicit protection
against humiliation and torture. The court gave necessary directions by relaxing the strict rule
of locus standi.”
“In Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand & Others AIR 1980 SC 1622, Krishna Iyer, J.
relaxed the rule of locus standi:
"The truth is that a few profound issues of processual jurisprudence of great strategic
significance to our legal system face us and we must zero-in on them as they involve
problems of access to justice for the people beyond the blinkered rules of 'standing' of British
Indian vintage. 25 If the center of gravity of justice is to shift, as the Preamble to the
25
June 22, 2022
Constitution mandates, from the traditional individualism of locus standi to the community
orientation of public interest litigation, these issues must be considered....
All these abovementioned cases demonstrate that the courts, in order to protect and preserve
the fundamental rights of citizens, while relaxing the rule of locus standi, passed a number of
directions to the concerned authorities.
We would not like to overburden the judgment by multiplying these cases, but brief resume
of these cases demonstrates that in order to preserve and protect the fundamental rights of
marginalized, deprived and poor sections of the society, the courts relaxed the traditional rule
of locus standi and broadened the definition of aggrieved persons and gave directions and
orders. We would like to term cases of this period where the court relaxed the rule
of locus standi as the first phase of the public interest litigation. The Supreme Court and the
High Courts earned great respect and acquired great credibility in the eyes of public because
of their innovative efforts to protect and preserve the fundamental rights of people belonging
to the poor and marginalized sections of the society.””26
7. CONCLUSION:
“Class action or social action litigation, sometimes referred to as public interest litigation,
differs from traditional litigation. Delivering justice to individuals who would not often have
access to it is the primary goal of PIL. To increase its flexibility, the rule of locus standi has
undergone significant revisions. Any socially conscious individual can now submit a PIL on
behalf of the complaints or problems of a community that is socially or economically
backward. With the growth and development of PIL, the government's responsibility and
attitude toward the rights of poorer sectors have dramatically improved. PIL is one of the
most essential and effective tools for social change and to validate the Rule of Law as
indicated in Article 14 due to the loose rule of locus standi and the improvement of
government responsibility towards the poorer parts.”27
26
June 22, 2022
27
- DR and others, “Philosophical Basis of Public Interest in India, Concept, and Scope of
Locus Standi” (iPleadersFebruary 1, 2021) <https://blog.ipleaders.in/philosophical-
basis-public-interest-india-concept-scope-locus-standi/> accessed June 22, 2022

Constitutional Law Ii Research Papaer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law Ii Research Papaer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A CRITICAL STUDY ON “LOCUS STANDI” WITH CASE ANALYSIS

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

II. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

IV. TYPE OF RESEARCH:

This study is based on the doctrinal method of research.

VI. RESEARCH QUESTION:

4. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS AN EXEMPTION TO THE LOCUS

A public-spirited individual may employ this provision on behalf of socially or economically

B. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar ... vs Union Of India And Others on 13

“A pragmatic approach to social justice compels us to interpret constitutional provisions,

C. Union Of India And Another vs W.N. Chadha on 17 December, 1992:

D. Ghulam Qadir vs Special Tribunal & Ors on 3 October, 2001:

You might also like