Basic concept of locus standi

The word locus (plural loci) is Latin for "place". “Locus standi” is Latin for ‘place to stand’- In law, the right to bring an action.

It is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In United States law, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated -In essence the question of locus standi is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.

There are three constitutional standing requirements:

Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.

Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.

Redress ability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.

Concept and development of the rule of Locus Standi is clearly stated by a DB of the Hon. High Court of Kerala in Dr. George Mampilly v. State of Kerala - 1984 KLT SN 17 (C.No.29)

“Law, it is said, is dynamic. Naturally, our perception of locus standi also has been undergoing transformation. The traditional conception in regard to locus standi is that judicial redress is available to a person who has suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right or. legally protected interest by the impugned action of the State or a public authority or who is likely to suffer a legal injury by such reason. Courts have, during recent years, evolved a number of exceptions to this rule. Courts have now acknowledged that where there has been violation of constitutional or legal rights of persons who, by reason of their socially or economically disadvantaged position, are unable to approach the court for judicial redress, a member of the public could move the court for enforcement of such rights of such persons. Members of the public are enabled, in appropriate cases to come forward to protect the rights of person or persons belonging to a determinate class who, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, are unable to approach the court for relief. This principle has been extended to cases where no specific regal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class or group of persons by the act or omission of State or public authority and injury is caused only to public interest. Where there is a public wrong of public injury by an act or omission by the State or a public authority which is contrary to the Constitution or to any law, any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action to or redress such public wrong or public, injury. Courts have begun to recognize that they exist not merely to vindicate individual rights but also to vindicate public rights and therefore permit members of the public to agitate such rights. Any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress of public injury arising from breach of public duty or 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. Of course, it must be ensured that the person who comes forward is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or out of political motivation or other oblique consideration. Relied AIR 1982 SC 149; (1982) 3 SCC 235; AIR 1983 1 SC 130.

Print Page