The locus standi doctrine dates back a long way. The doctrine denotes appearing before the court or in front of anyone regarding a certain matter. A stranger to a contested topic cannot be permitted to meddle in the legal procedures, as per the locus standi theory. The only person who can file a lawsuit in court is the one whose legal rights have been infringed, or the person who has been wronged and against whom a ruling has been made.
locus standi in civil procedure code: About
This Latin proverb is made up of the terms “locus” and “standi,” which signify, respectively, a location to stand and the authority to pursue legal action. Therefore, locus standi refers to the ability to file a lawsuit with the court.
This maxim states that only those whose legal rights have been violated and who have a direct bearing on the court’s decision are eligible to file a lawsuit in a court of law. Anyone else who is not involved in the disputed topic is not permitted to do so. This adage places the litigant in a position to contest the ruling or the legislation. All of this boils down to the idea that the Latin maxim “Locus Standi” is based on two ideas.
These two ideas are as follows:
- The petitioner himself must be the victim of a grievance.
- The petitioner’s personal legal rights must have been violated in some way.
What is the requirement for locus standi?
- This doctrine requires to keep court cases to a minimum and safeguard the interests of all parties.
- It also establishes who can be sued or make a claim in court, as well as the court that has jurisdiction over the matter in question.
locus standi in cpc: Essentialities
- First and foremost, the plaintiff needs to have really sustained harm in order to qualify for locus standi. This means that rather than being hypothetical or speculative, the plaintiff must have experienced a specific, concrete injury that is either present or imminent. The harm must be attributable to the defendant’s actions and must be remedied by a court ruling in the plaintiff’s favour.
- Causation is the second necessary component of locus standi. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prove a link between the defendant’s actions and their injury. This means that the plaintiff has to prove that their injury was caused by or made worse by the defendant’s acts or inactions.
- Redressability is the third requirement of locus standi. The plaintiff must demonstrate that their harm can be made whole by the court’s ruling in their favour. Put differently, the plaintiff needs to demonstrate that the requested relief will likely make up for the injury they have endured.
Significant difference between cause of action and locus standi
| CAUSE OF ACTION | LOCUS STANDI |
| The legal foundation or grounds upon which a person may file a lawsuit against another party is known as a Cause of Action. | Standing, or locus standi, is the legal term for a person’s ability or right to file a lawsuit. |
| It is the foundation of a lawsuit consisting of legal theory or claim. | It centres on the plaintiff’s ability to file a lawsuit. |
| It lists the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to establish liability. | The plaintiff must show that they have a direct and personal stake in the outcome of the action. |
locus standi in civil cases: Case Rulings with Respect to Expectation on Locus Standi
- In the case of Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh v UOI, the Supreme Court held that the Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh (Railway), while not being a registered organization, could bring a writ-petition under the virtue of Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to have a popular grievance addressed. The Court additionally found that representative processes, class actions, and lawsuits in the public interest can all be used by constitutional jurisprudence to obtain justice.
- In the case of S.P Gupta v Union of India, regarding the appointment of judges under the virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution, a group of attorneys filed a writ petition. The petition was approved because the attorneys genuinely cared about how cases were resolved and judges were chosen. This case marked the beginning of a new era in public interest litigation in India. One of the most effective tools for enforcing public duties that were previously performed illegally and negatively impacted society is the Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
Because preserving justice in society is the primary goal of our legal system, public interest litigation was created in India, and locus standi is a crucial component of public interest litigation. A revolution in the functioning of justice has resulted from the locus standi being loosened, which has encouraged public interest litigation.
However, because of this laxity, the locus standi concept is exploited, which causes a backlog of pointless lawsuits in the judicial system. Therefore, the courts must exercise caution when admitting a matter to ensure that the locus standi concept is not abused.
