‘LOCUS STANDI’

Locus standi means right of a person to seek judicial remedy, who has suffered or is going to
suffer a legal injury because of violation of his legal rights. It is an action instituted by an
individual or social action group for the enforcement of the Constitutional or Legal Rights of the
general public or of an identifiable class of person , within the domain of public law. Ordinarily,
the Court would insists that the action is brought by a person who is, or is likely to be, personally
affected by the alleged violation of his right.
The traditional doctrine of ‘Locus standi’ is a rule of ancient origin. It arose during an era, when
private law dominated the legal seen and public law had not yet been born. The doctrine of locus
standi is meant to differentiate the threshold of procedural requirements with the actual merits or
substantive issues of the case. The Courts attempts to pronounce standards to determine the
claims of standing. In a regular case of private litigation, the judicial redress is sought to
vindicate private rights, whether individual or proprietary. Normally the judicial
redress is sought by a person in whom legal right is vested, and some legal injury is caused to the
persons or the property of the plaintiff who bring the action. When the state and an individual
enter into a conflict in deciding what is to be considered as a right under a specific Constitutional
provision and what is not, the matter is placed before the judiciary for finding out the actual
scope of it.
A very liberal view has been taken of the requirements of locus standi in respect of Public
Interest Litigation. In England, Lord Diplock had already shown the need for the relaxation of
procedural requirements in the Inland Revenue Commissioners’ case 1 especially as regards
standing. Departing from the traditional formal rules for initiating an action, the courts in India
have permitted litigants under PIL to obtain access by letter or even by telegram. In some cases,
the courts have acted suo motu, relying on newspaper reports of human rights violations. In a
country like India where recourse to the law was hitherto
only available to a select few, it has been recognised that the right of access to the courts should
be widened to include all sections of the population. Many potential litigants belong to deprived
or disadvantaged segments of society, and lack awareness of their legal rights by reason of
illiteracy, poverty or other handicaps. It is therefore only appropriate that their voices should be
heard in the courts, even if only through intermediaries such as public spirited individuals

1(R V. II and Revenue Commissioners, ex p Federation of Self-employed [1982] AC 617 at

638)

or social action groups willing to initiate Public Interest Litigation. That approach has been
foreshadowed by the Supreme Court in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha V. Abdulbhai 2 and later
in S.P. Gupta V. Union of India3.
The rules in regard to locus standi postulates a right duty pattern which is commonly found in a
private litigation. According to this interpretation any person who suffers a specific legal injury
can claim for a remedy but at the same time it confers a corresponding duty to the person to
protect the legal right of the other person. This is rather a narrow and rigid rule, but through
judicial reviews the Court over years have widened its scope and created various exceptions to
the original rules.4
With the advent of the welfare state, a drastic changes are taking place in Constitutional process.
Traditionally, the Courts of law were considered a heaven for rich persons to vindicate their
personal and proprietary rights. But millions of people in India, are under poverty and they could
not able to knock at the doors of the law Courts to redress their grievances or to enforce their
basic human rights enunciated in the Constitution of India. To those poor masses
justice was a far of dream. This unhappy situation is now being remedied by liberalising the
technical rules of procedure and evolving a new mechanism of public interest litigation. The
weaker sections of society and downtrodden people in India now have a hope in the twilight of
public interest litigation. Earlier, the Courts were the traditional forums, for resolving disputes
and redressal grievances between individuals. The transformation of the ever increasing
functions and powers of such agencies and authorities in resolving disputes among individuals
and between individuals and the state had its impact upon the legal system as well as on the
concept of access to justice.5 Now the state has not only a provider of welfare services, a
regulator an entrepreneur, but also an umpire for the protection of the rule of law.

In contemporary society, due to rise of welfare state and unprecedented range of class conflicts,
impugned and actions are no longer merely individualistic, but they have assumed collective
character. Now they do not refer to one or a few individuals alone, but they refers to groups and
class of people. Even basic rights and duties are no longer exclusively the individual rights and
duties of olden age rather they are now collective, social rights and duties of association,
community and classes.
In the welfare state, the private citizen is for ever encountering public officials of many kinds, as
regulators, dispensers of social service, managers of state operated enterprise. It is the task of
rule of law to see that these multiple and diverse encounters between the two should be fair, just
and free from arbitrariness. As the custodian of public interest and individual liberties and
dipenser of justice, the higher judiciary has attend a prime role. In supervising

2AIR 1976 SC 1455 3 AIR 1982 SC 149

4 Somen Chakraborty: “Locus Standi ‘ and Constitution of India Legal News & Views
Vol.11 No.1 January 1997
5 Friedman, : “ The State and the Rule of Law in a mixed Economy “ (1971) at page 3
the function of the state and state agencies, the higher judiciary has widened its jurisdiction.6

Therefore, it is been recognized that while interest of an individual alleging violation of public
right is in question, he will have ‘locus standi’ provided that the individual is prejudiced by the
injury to the public interest more than the other ordinary members who are also prejudiced
thereby. Therefore, the petitioner must have some interest over and above the interests of other
members of public before he can be allowed to represent the public interest as distinguished from
private law rights. Thus, when the orthodox view proved out to be inadequate, it paved way for
the liberalisation of doctrine of locus standi’.
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, confers a unique, unprecedented and extraordinary
jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of
fundamental rights. Article 32 is itself a fundamental right and it guarantees the right to move the
Supreme Court by ‘appropriate proceedings’ for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
It is submitted that the requirements of ‘appropriate proceedings’ under Article 32 have, to a
certain extent, relaxed in relation to development of Public InterestLitigationinIndia.
Itisduetothefactthatthereare,andtherehave been certain distinguished unprecedented and unique,
developments in this area. That is, the Court is, and has been for quite some time in the past,
entertaining letters, postcard, Telegrams, and even newspaper articles and letters to the editor,
espousing the cause of socially or economically disadvantaged sections of Indian society, as writ
petitions under Article 32, Prof. Upendra Baxi has termed it as “epistolary Jurisdiction’. Further,
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution gives to every High Court the power to issue orders or
writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution and
for any other purpose. And Article 227 empowers the High Courts with a power of
superintendence over all Courts and tribunals in the territories in relation to which they exercise
jurisdiction. In India, the horizons for ‘standing’ are very wide. Section 9 of Code of
CivilProcedure, 1908,also gives a very wide jurisdiction to the Courts to try any suits of a civil
nature excepting suits of which their (court’s) cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
The Indian Constitution grew out of a national consensus for the need to achieve a
transformation - politic, social and economic. The political backdrop was provided by the
independence movement and the Nation’s resolve to preserve democracy; the social revolution
consisted in the deliverance of illiterate masses from the stranglehold of religious dogma,
superstition and poverty; the economic revolution consisted in the advancement from a rural
economy to one planned scientifically.

6Maurice Capelliti, ed. : Vindicating the Public Interest, Vol.3 at P.517

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while going to define the meaning of public
interest litigation and the locus standi in the case Janata Dal Vs. H.S.
Choudhury7 held
" The Supreme Court has widely enlarged the scope of PIL by relaxing and liberalising the rule
of standing by treating letters or petitions sent by any person or association complaining
violation of any fundamental rights and also entertaining writ petitions filed underArt. 32 by
public-spirited and policy-oriented activist persons or journalists or of any organisation rejecting
serious challenges made with regard to the maintainablility of such petitions and rendered many
virtuosic pronouncements and issued manifold directions to the Central and the State
Governments, all local and other authorities within the territory of ndia or under the control of
the Government of India for the betterment of the public at large in many fields in conformity
with constitutional prescriptions of
what constitutes the good life in a socially just democracy”.
However, only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL
will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court for the poor and needy, suffering from
violation of their fundamental rights. But a person for personal gain or private profit or political
motive or any oblique consideration has no locus standi. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the
colour of PIL brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection
at the threshold. The Court should not allow its process to be abused by mere busybodies,
meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest
except for personal gain or private profit either for themselves or as proxy of others or for any
other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity. But this does not mean there is any
retreating or recoiling from the earlier views expressed by the Supreme Court about the
philosophy of public interest litigation.

7 (1992) 4 S.C.C. 305

In Fertiliser Corporation Kamgar Union (regd.) v. Union of India8, the workers of a public
sector corporation challenged the legality and propriety of the decision of the corporation’s
directors to sell certain plants and equipment of its Fertiliser Factory. A unanimous Court rules
that where public property is dissipated or misused, it would require a strong argument to
convince the Court that representative segments of the public or at least a section of the public
which is directly interested and affected would have no right to complain of the infraction of
public duties and obligations. Public enterprises are owned by the people and those who run
them are accountable to the people, the Court said. It lamented that accountability of public
Sector Undertakings to the Parliament was woefully inadequate and ineffective because
Parliamentary control of public enterprises is generally ‘‘diffuse and haphazard". ‘We are not
sure”, opined the Chief Justice, “if we would have refused relief to the workers if we had found
that the sale was unjust, unfair or malafide”.
The Court adopted the liberal phrase as a test of standing, namely, that the petitioners must
constitute a representative segment or at least a section which will be directly interested or
affected. In its concern for the proper performance of public duties, the court has done away with
fictions of proprietary right or personal injury. Justices Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer delivered
separate, concurring judgments saying that "an officious busybody” or an "idle pedlar of
blackmail litigation” would not be allowed to pollute the instrumentality of the Court and that the
Courts will take cognisance of a claim if the claimant has an interest deeper than a busybody’s.
The decision in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union, Sindri Vr. Union ofIndia9 opens up a
new vista in relation to questions of standing. Of particular significance is the role of the
Directive Principles in assessing the standing of a person who assails the action of the State and
seeks the protection of the Court. True enough, Article 37 provides that the Directive Principles,
though fundamental in the governance of the country, are not enforceable by the Courts.
A Directive Principle of State policy enjoins the State by Article 39(c) of the Indian Constitution
that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the operation of the
economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the
common detriment. The Supreme Court in Sindri Fertiliser did not enforce Article 39(c); but it
achieved the same result by giving primacy to that Article. By that process, it conferred standing
on those who had a legitimate and sufficient interest to prevent the use of social resources to
common detriment.

8 AIR 1981 SC 344

9(AIR 1981 SC 344)

Increasing opportunities, for conferring standing on those who are the object of social welfare
laws, are likely to arise in the matter of legislation regarding the health and strength of workers
(Art 39 (e)); children (Art. 39(f)); the right to work, education and public assistance (Art. 41);
just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief (Art. 42); living wages (Art. 43) and
participation of workers in management of industries (Art. 43A).
There are a number of cases recognizing the right of a member of a class or residents to move the
Court. For instant, in Briz Prasad v. Ramu Seethamma and others10 wherein the residence
were allow to challenge the transfer of land by the Municipal Corporation to a School. Then in
Municipal Council, Ratlam vs. Varbhichand11 a public minded citizen-cum-resident was
allowed to comple the public authority to clean the slums by writing to the Magistrate. In that
case when the Municipality failed to carry out its statutory duty of constructing a drain pipe to
carry the filth, the local residence invoked Section 133 oft the Criminal Procedure Code against
Municipality. The Court recognized the ‘standing’ of the local residence to move the Magistrate
Under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code.
In the case of Sunil Batra II vs. Delhi Administration12 the Court recognize right of a prisoner
to move the Court complaining of alleged torture of another prisoner. This case started with a
letter written to the Supreme Court by a life convict, Sunil Batra, in which he alleged that the
headwarden had pierced a buttom into the anus of Prem Chand, another prisoner, to extract
money from him through visiting relatives. The letter was treated as a writ petition and the Court
appointed three senior lawyers who visited the jail, interview people there, and conformed the
allegation. The hospital records also conform the injuries. The government lawyer did not take
an adversary stand, but help the Court to led down rules to wipe out the evils in the prison.
Appreciating this, the Judgement observe that the finest hour of the justice comes when Court
and Counsels constructively collaborate to pure wrongs and evolved remedies. While delivering
judgement their Lordships Hon’ble Judges, V.R. Krishna Iyer, R.S.Pathakand O.Chinnappa
Reddy observed that “The Court need not follow the traditional procedures when a serious
allegation of violation of prisoner’s rights is made. Technicalities, and legal niceties can be
avoided and even an informal complaint can be turned into a habeas corpus writ petition under
Artilce 32 of the Constitution (in the Supreme Court) or under Article 226 (in the High Court).
Prisoners are also persons and they do not lose all their basic rights because they are put in jail.
When their rights either under Constitution or under other laws are violated, the writ power of
the Supreme Court or the High Court should runt otheirrescue. Whetherin side prison or outside,
a person shall not be deprived of his freedom except by methods “right, just and fair.”

10 AIR 1983 AP 118

11 AIR 1980 SC 1622

12 AIR 1980 Sc 1579

The Court has a continuing responsibility to ensure that the constitutional purpose of the
deprivation is not defeated by the jail administration. No prisoner can be subjected to
deprivations beyond the sentence of the Court. He may be
deprived of his right of movement by putting him in jail, but all other freedom belong to him. For
example, they have the right to read and write, to exercise and recreation, to meditation and
chant, creature comforts like protection from extreme heat and cold, to freedom from indignities
like compulsory nudity, forced sodomy and other unbearable vulgarities, movement within the
prison campus, subject to the requirements of discipline and security, to the minimal joys of self-
expression, to acquire skills and techniques and other fundamental rights tailored to the
limitations of imprisonment.
In Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangha(Rly)vs. UnionofIndia13, an unorganized
Union was allow to challenge certain circulars of the Railway Department.
In Fertilisers Corporation Kamgar Union, Sindri vs. Union of India 4 Court allowed members of
the workers Union to move the Court to the respect to the matters affecting theirjobs and
livelihood.
In RS.R. Sadanathan vs. Arunachalam15, the Court recognize right of brother of the victim to
pursue criminal proceedings against the accused when state had refrained from pursuing the case
for reasons which did not bear on the public interest but are prompted by private influence and
other extraneous consideration. The people of India has no equal bargaining power and there is
acquit inequality of such power to raise public issue for the protection of public interest in the
Court. People who has very little or no bargaining power has little access to justice. And justice
is an illusion for them. There exists many reason for it. Firstly, the right to comple against
societal tyranny is merely illusory for those who are socially oppressed, exploited and repressed.
Take for example, in the case of land less labour, brick-kill workers or tribals in the forest, who,
though

13 AIR 1981 Sc 298

14 AIR 1981 SC 344

15 (1980) 3 SCC 141

they are not physically incarcerated, but are terror -stricken that it is just in practical to except
them to approach the Court for redressal of their grievances. Second reason which compels them
to accept the degrading jobs or jobs that endanger their health and life. The economic
deprivations prevent labourers from asking for better deal in a labour surplus economy. For
instance ‘Adibasis’ losing limbs and lives while collecting metal unfiring rains in Madhya
Pradesh (SudipMazumdar vs.StateofMadyaPradesh16 or the State of Workeing slate and
pencil factories dying of scleroris in Mandsaur. It was economic deprivation that kept them from
moving the Court of law.
The decision of Indian Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India17that gave an
altogether new dimension to the concept of locus standi. The Court in Maneka Gandhi case gave
a very bounteous interpretation to the provision contained in Article 21 of India Constitution,
thus setting a ground for
a trailblazing course to be followed for all times to come. The court held that the
‘procedure prescribed by law’ must be ‘just, fair and reasonable procedure and not any arbitrary,
opprerssive or fanciful procedure’.
There after in a series of cases, the Supreme Court did not pause in delivering social justice to
the weaker sections in our society. Indian Supreme Courtcreated
newerpositiverightsasaspectsoffundamentalrights.Andthen in its quest for justice forthe needy
sections in society of India, the Court even pursued enforcement of those new positive rights by
issuing directions to the state to create all necessary conditions in order to ensure the enjoyment
of those rights. Some of these new rights that emerged as important constituents of fundamental
rights in the light of Directive Principles of State Policy are the - right to speedy trial, right to
legal aid, right to human dignity, right to bail, right against torture, right to shelter, right to
livelihood, right to basic needs, rights to education, etc.

Thus, when the conventional view proved out to be inadequate, it gave way to the new current
giving a very liberal interpretation to the locus standi as doctrine . As for instance, in , the
residents of village were given'standing’ to challenge the order of the government opening a
health centre in another village. The court ruled that the expectations raised in the mind of the
applicants were sufficient to give him locus standi.

16 (1983) 2 SCC 258

17 AIR 1978 SC 597

Like wise in N.V. Subbarao vs. Govt ofAndra Pradesh 18 petitioner complained of opening of
a bone factory in the locality which, according to him, was not only a legal injury to his private
interests but it was also prejudicial to the interests of all other residents in the locality. Court
gave ‘standing’ to the petitioner. In these two cases, the petitioner had not to show that grievance
suffered by him was in any way over and above other residents.
The inequality of bargaining power has an important bearing on locus standi. Consider, for
example, the issue of bonded labour or child labour. Access to the executive remains an illusion
because (i) Social oppression makes illusory the right to complain against societal tyranny; (ii)
The reasons which compel the acceptance of jobs which are degrading are economic and
economic deprivation prevents such labour from asking for a better deal in a labour surplus
economy; and (iii) Ignorance and illiteracy make access to executive a stark impossibility. If
such be the circumstances, should the Courts not intervene at the behest of genuine public-
minded citizen ? That is the
justification for not imposing technical rules of standing which will cripple the judicial function
and render its exercise difficult where it is needed most.
InAkhilBharatiyaSoshitKaramchariSangh(Railway)v. UnionofIndia,19 the railway Board
issues certain directives which were designed to promote the interests of members of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the matter of promotion in Government Services. One
of the petitioners who assailed
the policy of reservation posts was an unrecognised trade union. The Court
granted it standing, Krishna Iyer, J. observing:

“Whether the petitioners belongs to a recognised trade union or not, the fact remains that a large
body of persons with a common grievance exists and they have approached this Court under Art.
32. Our current procedual jurisprudence is not of individualistic Anglo Indian mould. It is broad-
based and people-oriented and envisions access to justice through ‘class actions’, 'public interest
litigation’, and ‘representative proceedings’.Indeed, little Indians in large numbers, seeking
remedies in Courts through collective proceedings......is an affirmation of participatory justice in
our democracy.”

18AIR 1968 A.P. 98

19AIR 1981 SC 298

The Court, traditionally, has not insisted on strict standards of locus standi in petitions for habeas
corpus. The reasons are not far to seek. Insistence by the Courts that the petition must be filed by
the detinue himself will in most cases make the access to justice illusory and defeat the very
purpose for which
the writ is intended, indeed, in Habeas Corpus petitions, the unqualified extension of the doctrine
of standing has so much hardened into a rule that no Court ever inquires whether the petitioner
has the standing to file the petition.
The doctrine of standing has acquired a new dimension on account of the construction placed by
the Supreme Court on the provisions of Article 21. A letter was written to a Supreme Court
Judge by the petitioner. He
complained of the miseries of a prisoner serving a life term and the tyranny of a jail warden.
Treating the matter as a habeas corpus petition, the Court gave

to a prisoner, Sunil Batra, standing to allege that the torture of a co-prisoner had violated his (the
co-prisoner’s) Art. 21 rights by the denial to him of a dignified existence in jail.
In D.B. Patnaik v. State ofAndhra Pradesh20 the Court had observed
that merely by reason of their conviction and incarceration, convicts are not
deprived ofalloftheirfundamentalrights.
” A compulsion under the authority of law, following upon a conviction, to live in a prison
house, entails by its own force the deprivation of fundamental freedom like the right to move
freely throughout the territory of India.... But the Constitution guarantees other freedom..even a
convict is entitled to the precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution that he shall
not be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.
LIBERALISATION OF ‘LOCUS STANDI’
In Public Interest Litigations, the strict rule of ‘Locus Standi’ applicable to
private litigation is relaxed and broad rule is evolved which gives the right of ‘
Locus Standi’ to any member of the public acting bona-fide and having sufficient
interest in instituting an action for redressal of public wrong or public injur/.
Supreme Court in the case People’s Union for Democratic Rights Vrs. Union
of India’ 21 has held that :
“But 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

20 AIR 1974 SC 2092 21AIR 1982 SC 1473

of jurisprudence have been broken and a new dimension has been given to the doctrine of locus
standi which has 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 easily available to the
lowly and the lost.”
In recent times Courts have liberalised the strict principle of Locus Standi and have recognised a
departure from the strict rule as applicable to a person in private action and broadened and
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
cf socially and economically disadvantaged persons who on account of their poverty or total
ignorance of their Fundamental Rights are unable to enter the portals of the Courts for judicial
redress, yet no precise and inflexible working definition has been evolved in respect of ‘Locus
Standi’ of an individual seeking
judicial remedy and various activities in the field of PIL.22
It is pertinent here to side the observation of Bhagwati, J.in the case of
S.P. Gupta Vrs. Union of India23
“ Today 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 devise 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
no 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
have 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.”

22 P.M. Bakshi: “ Public Interest Litigation " P 30

23AIR 1982 SC 149

Supreme Court in the case Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vrs. Union of India24 emphasised that
when an allegation showed that the workers were being held without basic amenities like
Drinking Water or two square meals, the Court cannot ignore them and maintain that there was
no violation of Fundamental Rights . The judgement quoted an earlier ruling (Francis Coralie
Mullin Vrs. Administrator, Delhi,25 in which the Court had held that every one in this country
has right to live with dignity, free from exploitation. The Court treated the letter as writ petition.
Justice Bhagwati explaining the nature and purpose of PIL observed:-
“PIL is not in the nature of adversary litigation but it is a challenged and an opportunity to the
Government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and
vulnerable section of the community and to assure them social and economic justice which is the
signature tune of our Constitution. The Government and its officers must welcome PIL because
it would provide them an occasion to examine whether the poor and downtrodden are getting
their social and economical entitlements or whether they are continuing to remain victims of
deception and exploitation at the hands of the strong and powerful section of community... When
the Court entertains PIL it does not so in a cavilling spirit in a controversial mood or with a view
to tilting at executive authority or seeking to usurp it, but its attempt is only to endure observance
of social and economic programmes framed for the benefit of have-nots and the handicapped and
to protect them against violation of their basic human right, which is also the constitutional
obligation of the executive, the Court is thus merely assisting in a realization of constitutional
objective.”

24 AIR 1984 SC 302 : (1984) 3 SCC 161

25(1981) 1 S.C.C.608
In the case of Olga Tellis Vrs. Bombay Municipal Corporation26 a number of writ petitions
were filed by two journalists alongwith the peoples union for civil liberties committee for the
protection of Democratic rights of two other pavement dwellers under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India challenging the legality and correctness of the decision of the Bombay
Municipal Corporation to demolish the dwellings of the slum hut ments on the ground of
violation of
Article 21. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the writ petition but Court rejected
the challenge and held that the right to life conferred ofArticle 21 is of wide sweep and far
reaching effect and are of the facets of such right is the right to livelihood.
The Court has widely enlarged the scope of PIL by relaxing the rule of locus standi by treating
letters or petitions sent by any person or association complainant violation of any Fundamental
rights and also entertaining writ petitions filed underArticle 32 of the Constitution by the public
spirted and social activists or journalists or member of any organisation.
In the case S.P Gupta Vrs. Union ofIndia27the Court held that:-

“.... any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial
redress for public duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitution or the law and
seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of such constitutional or legal provision.
This is absolutely essential for maintaining the rule of law, furthering the cause of justice and
accelerating the piece of realisation of the constitutional objectives. ”

26 AIR 1986 SC 180

27AIR 1982 SC 149

The relaxation of standing is integral to public interest litigation. For that alone would provide
access to a large number of determinate groups and helpless individuals. It is access through
public spirited individuals or organisations. The basis of standing is “sufficient interest”, and the
measure of sufficient interest is either injury to one’s own rights or social concern of public
spirited individuals or organisation with infringement of either group rights or rights of indigent
and helpless individuals. In public interest litigation the basis of ‘sufficient interest’ is not
necessarily an injury to personal rights. It is always the collective e concern of public spirited
individuals and voluntary public agencies that may invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
In S.P. Gupta and other V. Union of India28 (commonly known as Judges’ Appointment and
Transfer Case) and Asiad Workers Case the Supreme Court laid down that standing may be
accorded to a person or body whose rights may not be directly affected but who may, out of
public concern, represent groups and classes in Bandhua Mukti Morcha Case the State of
Haryana tried to obstruct proceedings on the ground that the petitioner, a voluntary organisation,
was not an “aggrieved party” and that as such it had no standing. The Supreme Court ruled-as
expected that standing can be granted to individuals and voluntary
bodies if they are trying to defend the rights of weaker sections of society and helpless
individuals.

In another case State ofHimachal Pradesh Vs. A Parent of a student of

medical College 29 are Landmark Judgments in the history and development
of Public Interest Litigation. The Supreme Court, for the first time demarcated
the area within which the strategy of PIL and the liberalisation of locus standi
should operate. The Court held that:-
“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 High Court considers it
expedient to do so in the interests of justice. This is an innovative strategy which has been
evolved by the Supreme Court for the purpose of providing easy access to justice to the weaker
sections of Indian humanity and it is a powerful tool in the hands of public- spirited individuals
and social action group for combating exploitation and injustice and securing for entitlements. It
is a highly-effective weapon in the armoury of the law for reaching social justice to the common
man.”

28 AIR 1982 SC 149

29 (1985) 3 SCO 169 : AIR 1986 SC 847

The message of the decision was carried further in the case of State HP. Vs. Umed Ram 30.
The principle was settled that the person who had applied to the High Court by the letter are the
persons affected by the absence of usable role. Because they are poor Harijan residence of the
area inaccessible by communication. His life was miserable outside being obstructed by the
absence of road. The entire state of Himachal Pradesh is in hills and without walkable road, no
communication is possible. So, there should be road for
communication in reasonable conditions in view of our Constitutional imperatives and denial of
that right would be denial of the life as understood in its reachness and fullness by the ambit of
the Constitution. The letter or petition filed by the respondent before the Court to issue direction
and guidelines for construction of road is a mile stone in the field of Public interest Litigation.

In D.C. Wadhwa Vrs. State of Bihar31'' is another landmark judgment in

the history of public interest litigation. The petitioner, a Professor of Political
Science, had done research in the manner of Issuing Ordinances 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 provision, 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. In so holding
the Court made the following observations:-
“..... 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 the 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 of
repromulgating 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.”

30 (1986) 2 SCC 68: AIR 1986 SC 847

31 (1987) 1 SCO 378 : SC 579

In P.V. Kapoor Vs. Union ofIndia32 Court held the public interest litigation is essentially a
cooperatives or collaborative effort on the part of the petitioner, the State or public authority and
the court to secure observance of the Constitutional or legal rights, benefits and privileges
conferred upon the vulnerable section of the community and to reach social justice to them.
In S.P Anand Vs. Deve Gowda33 Court observed that no person was right to waive the rule of
locus standi. Court should permit it only when it is satisfied that, the carriage of proceedings in
the competent hands of a person who is genuinely concerned in public interest and is not moved
by other extraneous considerations.
In the Case Dr. Nandjee Singh Vrs. P.G. Medical StudentAssociation34 and State ofBihar
Vrs. Kamelesh Jain35Court observed that individual dispute should not be converted into
public interest litigations. Court will not encourage individual disputes short to be converted into
public interest litigations.
A public interest litigation at the behest of organizations or a group of individuals who have no
personal game or private motive or any other oblique consideration except to see that 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 36. His Lordship Krishna lyerJ. in
Fertilizer Coporation of Kamgar Union Vrs. UnionofIndia held
“Law is a social auditor and this audit function can be put into action only when someone with
real public interest ignites the jurisdiction.37

32AIR 1982 SC 147

33 AIR 1997 SC 272 : 1996 (6) SCC 734

34 AIR 1993 SC 2264

35 1993 (2) SCC (Supp.) 300

36 Consumer Education & Research Society Vs. Union of India : AIR 1995 Gujrat 142

37 AIR 1981 SC 844 38 Quoted in AIR 1980 SC 856 "( AIR 1980 SC 85
In the words of S.A. de Smith, the judicial process must reflect: “ the desirability of encouraging
individual citizens to participate actively in the enforcement of law, and the undesirability of
encouraging the professional litigant and meddlesome interloper
to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts in matters that do not concern them.”38
Lack of access to the political process has been strikingly remedied by an activist court. In P.S.R
Sadhanatham Vrs. Arunachalam39 The Judgement of the majority was delivered by Hon’ble
V.R. Krishna Iyer J. and Hon’ble R.S.PathakJ. gave a concurring opinion . In that case, the
petitioner therein was acquitted of the charge of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code. The brother of the victim filed a petition in the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution for special leave to appeal against the order of acquittal. The Court granted leave
and ultimately allowed the appeal. The petitioner by a writ petition under Article 32, challenged
the standing of the brotherofthedeceasedtoappealagainsttheacquittal. TheCourtwascaught in the
problem of adjusting priorities between two conflicting claims.
Supreme Court clarified the meaning of PIL and when it can be entertained to give relief to the
persons . In the case BALCO Employees’s Union (Regd.) Vrs. Union ofIndia40Court held that
financial or economic decisions taken by Government in exercise of its administrative power can
not be challenged in PIL unless there is violation of Article 21 and persons adversely affected are
unable to approach the Court. Policy decision of Government, regarding disinvestment in public
sector undertaking being an economic decision, and it
can not be challenged in PIL at the instance of a busybody. Court held that: -
“ Whenever the Court has interfered and given directions while entertaining PIL it has mainly
been where there has been an element of violation of Art.21 or of human rights or where the
litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to
come to court due to some disadvantage. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are
secured by the courts. However, public interest litigation was not meant to be a weapon to
challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of
their administrative power. No doubt a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which
he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a court of law, but a public interest litigation at the
behest of a stranger ought not to be entertained. Such a litigation cannot per se be on behalf of
the poor and the downtrodden, unless the court is satisfied that there has been violation of Art.21
and the persons adversely affected are unable to approach the court,(Para 88)
A Division bench of Supreme Court in the case B. Singh (Dr.) Vrs. Union of India 41 held that
generally there should necessity of disclosure of sources of information credentials of applicant
before admitting the PIL by the Court
40 (2002) 2 SCO 333 : AIR 2002 SC 350

41 (2004) 3 SCC 363 : AIR 2004 SC 1923

The Court has to be extremely careful that it does not encroach upon the sphere
reserve by the Constitution to the Executive and Legislature in the guise of
redressing public grievances. The Supreme Court held that
“ In admitting PILs the court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests : (i)
nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character
of others - if not properly and strictly regulated at least in certain vital areas or spheres and abuse
averted, PIL becomes a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta liberal. It has to be
extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance it does not encroach
upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature.(Para 14) “
The Supreme Court has prescribed rules of standing in the case filing of
PIL by a person acting as bonafide and having sufficient interest in the
proceeding of Public Interest Litigation. The rules for standing or ‘Locus standi’
approved by the Court in the case Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of West
Bengal,42isfollows.
“ 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
private profit 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 considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in
the pasting of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper
motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions
of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate
cases, with exemplary costs. (Paras 4, 12 and 14).”
Likewise in the case Indian Banker’s Association Vs. Devkala ConsultancyService43the
Court observed that
“ While entertaining a public interest litigation, the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 32 of the Constitution and the High Courts under Article 226 thereof are entitled to
entertain a petition moved by a person having knowledge in the subject-matter of the lis and,
thus, having an interest therein, as contradistinguished from a busybody, in the welfare of the
people. The rule of locus has been relaxed by the courts for such purposes with a view to enable
a citizen of India to approach the courts to vindicate legal injury or legal wrong caused to a
section of people by way of violation of any statutory or constitutional right. Even where a writ
petition has been help to be not entertainable on the ground or otherwise of lack of locus, the
court in larger public interest has entertained a writ petition, (para 32 and 34)."

« (2004) 3 SCO 349 : AIR 2004 SC 280

43(2004)11 SCC1:AIR2004SC2615