Standing to bring judicial review;
🔹 Standing to Bring Judicial Review
Standing, also known as locus standi, refers to the legal right or capacity of a person or entity to approach the court for judicial review of an administrative or governmental action. Without proper standing, a petition for judicial review cannot be entertained.
Key Aspects of Standing in Judicial Review:
Who can file for judicial review?
Generally, a person must show that they are directly affected or aggrieved by the administrative action. The impact must be legal or substantial.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Courts in India have expanded the traditional concept of standing by allowing public-spirited individuals or organizations to file PILs on behalf of those who cannot approach the court themselves (e.g., marginalized groups).
Types of standing
Private or personal standing: Person directly affected.
Public interest standing: Person who represents public interest without being personally affected.
Exceptions
Courts may relax standing requirements in cases involving fundamental rights, public wrongs, or issues of great public importance.
🔹 Important Case Laws on Standing to Bring Judicial Review
1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (The Judges' Transfer Case), AIR 1982 SC 149
⚖️ Facts:
The case concerned judicial appointments and transfers.
Several petitioners challenged government actions affecting judiciary functioning.
🧑⚖️ Held:
The Supreme Court expanded the traditional concept of standing, allowing any citizen with sufficient interest to approach the court for enforcement of constitutional provisions.
Recognized public interest litigation (PIL).
Standing is liberally interpreted to promote justice and prevent abuse of power.
📌 Significance:
Landmark in expanding standing in India.
Allowed greater access to courts for administrative review.
2. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (Right to Privacy Case), AIR 1995 SC 264
⚖️ Facts:
A media organization challenged a government order banning publication of personal details.
🧑⚖️ Held:
The Court held that persons whose privacy is invaded have standing.
The right to seek judicial review arises from being directly affected by the administrative order.
The decision also confirmed that media/public interest groups can have standing when fundamental rights are at stake.
📌 Significance:
Affirmed personal and public interest standing.
Emphasized fundamental rights impact on standing.
3. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 386
⚖️ Facts:
Petition challenging reservation policies affecting educational admissions.
🧑⚖️ Held:
The Court reiterated that the petitioner must show they are aggrieved or affected.
However, standing can be relaxed for public interest cases affecting large groups.
Reinforced the importance of a genuine interest in the issue.
📌 Significance:
Balanced private aggrievement with public interest considerations.
Cautioned against frivolous or motivated petitions.
4. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (PUCL II), AIR 1997 SC 568
⚖️ Facts:
Petition challenged illegal telephone tapping practices.
🧑⚖️ Held:
The Court allowed PUCL, a public interest organization, to bring the petition even though it was not directly affected.
Emphasized importance of public interest standing where fundamental rights are at risk.
Recognized standing as a tool to ensure government accountability.
📌 Significance:
Reinforced public interest standing in matters of civil liberties.
Strengthened judicial oversight over administrative powers.
5. In Re: Delhi Laws Act, AIR 1951 SC 332
⚖️ Facts:
Involved a dispute over standing to challenge laws.
🧑⚖️ Held:
The Court emphasized the traditional rule of standing: only those directly affected have locus standi.
But also acknowledged that courts can relax this rule in cases involving public wrong or violation of constitutional rights.
📌 Significance:
Restated basic principles of standing.
Allowed exceptions in public interest cases.
🔹 Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Principle on Standing |
|---|---|---|
| S.P. Gupta v. Union of India | India | Liberalized standing; PIL recognized |
| R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu | India | Standing for those whose fundamental rights are affected |
| S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India | India | Standing requires genuine interest but can relax for public interest |
| PUCL v. Union of India | India | Public interest organizations have standing in civil liberties cases |
| In Re: Delhi Laws Act | India | Traditional rule of direct effect; exceptions for public interest |
✅ Conclusion
Standing is a threshold issue in judicial review determining who can approach courts.
Indian courts have moved from strict personal standing to a more liberal and expansive approach recognizing public interest litigation.
Standing requires showing a direct or substantial interest, but courts relax this rule to promote justice and protect constitutional rights.
This evolution has democratized access to courts, especially in holding administrative powers accountable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments