A Critical Study On Locus Standi With Case Analysis
- IJLLR Journal
- Sep 9
- 2 min read
Atul Kumar Dwivedi, Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam
ABSTRACT
The doctrine of Locus Standi forms a cornerstone of legal jurisprudence, as it determines who has the right to approach the courts for the enforcement of rights or the redressal of grievances. Traditionally, this principle was interpreted narrowly, permitting only an “aggrieved person” with a direct legal injury to file a case. Such rigidity, however, often restricted access to justice for marginalized groups who lacked resources or representation.
In the Indian legal context, the doctrine underwent a transformative evolution with the introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Spearheaded by progressive judges such as Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, PIL relaxed the strict requirements of locus standi and allowed public-spirited individuals and organizations to seek remedies on behalf of disadvantaged sections of society. Landmark cases like S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) and People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) firmly established this liberal approach, enabling the judiciary to address pressing issues of human rights, environmental protection, and governmental accountability.
Comparative perspectives reveal that while the United States continues to maintain a restrictive model requiring proof of injury-in-fact, jurisdictions such as South Africa and other Commonwealth nations have embraced more flexible interpretations to advance social justice. At the same time, Indian courts have faced challenges of frivolous and politically motivated PILs, prompting the judiciary to balance judicial activism with restraint.
This paper critically examines the historical development, judicial interpretations, and contemporary challenges of locus standi in India, while drawing insights from comparative jurisdictions. It argues that the evolving doctrine remains vital in ensuring access to justice and reflects the judiciary’s role in safeguarding both individual rights and collective interests.
