Locus Standi: Public Interest Litigation

1007 Words3 Pages

other reasons such as genuine concern for the society, eagerness to learn the judicial process along with helping the society, etc.

One of the major deterrent factors for a person filing PIL is the cost of filing the suit (which includes cost of filing, drafting, and appearance charges of attorneys, etc.). This has been considerably reduced as even the letters addressed to Chief Justices can act as a petition. A person may appear in person in the Court. The procedure for adjudication of PIL is not stringent as in the case of civil suits. Even if a lawyer is necessary, the Court would provide the attorney at the expense of the State.

Therefore, such measure reduces the deterrent factor of cost of filing the PIL to a great extent. Another deterrent …show more content…

Locus standi is a concept that evolved from America. The term means standing before the court or file case before the court. This PIL concept is in notion with Locus standi that whole society not standing before court but some social worker or jurist file before court on behalf of public or society, so Locus standi is a concept that evolved from Public Interest Litigation, which is changing their dimension and concept in broad.

The liberalization of the principle of Locus standi make possible for the court to recognize a general interest in any litigant on a matter as sufficient to have Locus standi. So the concept of individual interest, changed to special interest, again to class interest and now to sufficient interest.

There is no special person required to file the case. The traditional rule is that, the rights to move the Supreme Court is only available to those whose Fundamental Rights are infringed. A person, who is not interested in the subject matter of the order, has no Locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of the …show more content…

The court now permits the “public spirited persons to file a writ petition for the enforcement of Constitutional and statutory rights of any other person or a class is unable to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court due to poverty or any social and economic disability”. The widening of the traditional rule of Locus standi and the invention of Public Interest Litigation by the Supreme Court was a significant phase in the enforcement of Human Rights .

The court has contended that the right of lawyers to be heard on matters affecting the judiciary. This has given the due importance and power to Public Interest Litigation in becoming a potent weapon for the enforcement of “public duties” where executed inaction or misdeed resulted in public inquiry .

While expanding the scope of the “Locus standi”, Justice Bhagwati expressed a note of caution and observed “but we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in the case of this kind, is acting bonafide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and other.” The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to give an approximate remedy to the aggrieved persons in various

Open Document