Locus standi

What is locus standi?

Locus standi is a latin maxim, which is applied as a principle in considering the legal standing of an action brought before court.

The term broken down:

‘locus’ refers to a position or place

‘standi’ refers to the right or capacity to bring an action

The term collectively refers to the right to appear before a court or bring an action before the court. It becomes important to establish locus standi to ensure that only those who have a legitimate stake avail services of the court. Further, it serves as a tool for management of the burden on judiciary by deterring frivolous complaints from being adjudicated.

Official Definition

Locus standi is accepted as a general rule by courts, and is not codified. The term is not defined in any legal provision. However, the conditions required to be satisfied to establish locus standi for different types of litigation have developed with precedents over time. Locus standi rules apply to civil, criminal, and administrative cases.

In Charan Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh, the Court held that if a petitioner fails to establish locus standi to maintain the petition, none of the grounds of challenge are sustainable. Although not explicitly mentioned, Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides a general idea of the requirements to establish locus standi in a civil case. These include:

• Presence of an injury
• Cause and effect relationship between the injury caused to the plaintiff and the action of the defendant
• The injury must have redressal that can be availed through the court

In case of criminal case, the general rule as laid down in  A.R. Antulay vs. Ramdass Srinivas Nayak & Anr., is that the concept of locus standi is alien to criminal jurisprudence, unless specifically provided by the statute.

The exception to the rule of locus standi can be observed in public interest litigation. The relaxation to the principle was first observed in S. P. Gupta v Union of India, wherein the Court held that any member of the public or a social action group acting bonafide can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226, or the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, seeking redressal against violation of legal or constitutional rights of persons who are unable to approach the court themselves.

In P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam, locus standi for filing a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution was discussed. It was observed that a wider connotation should be given to the term ‘standing’ to further the objective of Article 136, which seeks to confer upon the Supreme Court the widest conceivable range of judicial power. It marked a shift towards a more liberal approach to locus standi in criminal matters, allowing public-spirited individuals to bring cases of public importance before the Court.

Types of locus standi

Public locus standi

It developed with the evolution of public interest litigation. It refers to the capacity of a member of the public to bring an action before the Court, if it affects public interest at large. Sufficient interest has to be established. It can be availed while invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226, and that of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Private locus standi

It refers to one’s personal interest or stake in the issue brought before the court. Private suits have more stringent requirements to establish legal standing in courts to ensure that courts are not burdened with frivolous matters. The person bringing a matter has to prove to the court their capacity by establishing a direct connection between the action and interest.

International Experience

The United States of America (US)

The principle of locus standi originated in the US. It is also known as the standing doctrine. Article III of the US Constitution provides the jurisdictional limits applicable to federal courts, which determine whether a party can bring their case through the federal court system. It provides that the person bringing the action should have a personal stake in the case’ outcome. The plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”, which means that the defendant’s action should have caused an injury to the plaintiff which can be redressed through the court.

South Africa

South Africa, similar to India, has a broad approach to the application of locus standi. It has liberal standing requirements so as to enable groups and third parties to bring action which affects public interest at large. This is referred to as "actio popularis”.

The United Kingdom (UK)

Locus standi finds application in private law and public law in the UK. A plaintiff can bring an action when there is interference with public right which involves interference with private right at the same time, or where there is no interference with private right, the interference with public right causes specific damage to the plaintiff. In the absence of such locus standi, a proceeding for enforcement of a public right can be commenced after obtaining consent of the Attorney General.

Research that engages with locus standi

• “Liberalization of the traditional rule of Locus Standi in the United Kingdom and Malaysia: A Comparative Study” by M Ershadul Bari and Ershadul Bari, examines how the rule of locus standi has evolved in the United Kingdom and Malaysia. It emphasizes the liberalization of this traditional rule, which historically restricted access to judicial remedies, particularly in public law matters. Traditionally, the rule limited the legal standing and consequently, excluded litigation motivated by genuine public interest. The UK has witnessed a significant liberalization of locus standi since the mid-20th century, through judicial activism and reforms in administrative law. Malaysian courts have also moved toward a more liberal interpretation, especially in matters involving public interest litigation. While both jurisdictions have liberalized locus standi, the UK has made more substantial strides due to its broader judicial reforms and a more robust tradition of public law litigation.
• “What is your locus? Optics, politics & frivolity in Public Interest Litigation” by R. Sai Spandana, published by Supreme Court Observer (SCO) critically analyses the development of locus standi with the evolution of public interest litigation. It examines the balance between expanding judicial access and preventing the misuse of the mechanism for political or frivolous purposes. Public interest litigation redefined locus standi by allowing entities or members of the public to represent collective or public interests. However, the relaxation granted to the application of locus standi has been misused to bring to front frivolous matters. The article highlights the need for accountability and caution, discouraging misuse of liberalization of the principle of locus standi, to protect the original intent of PILs.
• “The Resurgence of Standing in Judicial Review” by Joanna Bell explores the concept of locus standi in the English and Welsh legal system. It provides discussion on the idea that standing for judicial review is context-sensitive . It provides an understanding of how the court determines what constitutes ‘sufficient interest’, in the context of public law. Bell observes a resurgence in contested standing claims, driven by public interest litigation. Courts have generally avoided the risk of providing rigid definitions, and have emphasized on flexibility to suit varying statutory and factual contexts. In terms of public law, standing serves as a gatekeeping mechanism in judicial review, balancing access to courts and the need to prevent frivolous claims.

Challenges

There exists certain challenges with the evolution of the principle of locus standi. The liberalization in its application allowed more issues of public interest to be brought to the forefront. However, over time this relaxation has been misused to bring to the court issues motivated by political interest and malicious intentions. This poses the court with the challenge of determining which matters are genuine public interest litigation and which are fueled by optics and political agenda. It is likely to take away the attention of the courts from matters that need to be addressed. It is also likely to increase the burden on the judiciary. Hence, there is a need to balance the interpretation of the principle of locus standi and enable its application such that public interest is protected and frivolous matters do not take up too much of the court’s time. The principle has to be interpreted and applied with caution.

Difference between locus standi and cause of action

Locus Standi	Cause of Action
Person’s ability or right to file a suit.	Grounds upon which a person may file a suit.
Determines the maintainability of the suit.	Determines the merits of the case.
The plaintiff has to establish a direct and personal stake in the outcome of the suit.	The plaintiff has to fulfill certain requirements to establish liability.