Latest News
Back
RELAXATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LOCUS STANDI IN PUBLIC INTEREST CASES
The principle of Locus Standi was used significantly by the enforcement of fundamental rights through petitions filed before the Apex court and various High Courts under Articles 32 and 226 respectively. The courts used to be strict in demanding the petitions filed only by the persons whose fundamental right has been violated. The situation was such that if a third person filed a petition for even the grave violation of fundamental rights still the courts used to refuse to entertain the petition merely on the ground that the person whose fundamental right has been violated hasn’t approached the court himself. But now the courts have become liberal in the sense that they entertain the petitions filed by even the third person for the enforcement of fundamental rights another person/s.
One of the landmark cases in relaxation of the principle of locus standi is that of Hussanara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980 1 SCC 81), where a writ petition filed by an advocate was entertained by the court on the basis that public interest was involved in the matter. The petition concerned about the condition of under trial prisoners among whom many had already served the maximum imprisonment in a jail in the State of Bihar. The court held that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution. It also directed the state govt. to ensure that the prisoners are given free legal facilities so that they get their bail or final release from the jail. Another worth mentioning case is that of Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1983 SC 378). In this case, even a letter written by a journalist addressed to the Apex court was considered as an entertain-able petition. The petition concerned the issue of custodial violence of the under trial women prisoners in jail of Maharashtra and the court issued some directions to the state govt. for addressing the issue. In another case, a letter written by a prisoner alleging the brutality by the jail head against his fellow prisoner was also entertained by the Apex court (Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978 4 SCC 494). These were some of the cases where the Apex court actively took cognizance of the issues of prisoners and helped revive their fundamental rights.
Indian judiciary has not only taken the plight of prisoners but also of other civilians as well. In the case of Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichand (1980 4 SCC 162), a writ petition fled by the citizens against the municipal council for the removal of open drains was entertained by the court. In another case of M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 1115), a petition filed by a third person for protecting the lives of people who drink from the river Ganga was considered in the interest of public therefore entertained by the court. The court further directed the concerned authorities to take measures for tackling the pollution of the river. A petition filed by an advocate for the removal of prior technicalities of criminal procedure before treatment of the patient in case of a road or other accident was entertained by the court and appropriate directions were issued to the medical establishments (Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 2039).
Another landmark judgment in Public Interest Litigation is that of S. P. Gupta v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149). This was the case where the court recognised the Bar Associations standing to file writ petitions on behalf of another person/s. The issue in this case was that of questioning the executive’s policy of transferring the High Court judges arbitrarily. The court while explaining the significance of Public Interest Litigation stated that “PIL must be regarded as a well settled law, where a person whose right or interest has been violated is not able to enforce his right/interests due to any barrier which may be economic, social, etc. another person can approach the court on his behalf to enforce his legal right or legally protected interest.
The relaxation of the principle of locus standi has significantly helped in protection of fundamental rights of citizens effectively which otherwise would have been extremely difficult. The objective of such relaxation and the introduction of public interest litigation was that legal wrong wherever done or legal right wherever violated must not go unaddressed for lack of amenities or due to any other disability to approach the court. At the same time, the potential misuse of this relaxation has to be taken into consideration. The Apex court while realising such potential noted in one of its judgments that this weapon of public interest litigation should be used with due care and caution and must not be misused (Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2005 SC 540). In another case it noted that the tool of public interest litigation has been devised for protecting the interests/rights of poorer and weaker sections of the society while taking note of the difficulties they encounter in approaching the court. It further stated that this tool cannot be used to create nuisance or for the obstruction of administration of justice {Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India & others 2008}. Likewise the court now allows only such petitions where it finds its interference necessary for the administration of justice and where it finds the petitioners only try to waste the time of court it doesn’t entertain such petitions.
