LAW Courses
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

smith sharma (lecturer)     05 August 2008

Locus standi

Hi,

pls give me a proper defination of "LOCUS STANDI" n do u think that the rule of "locus standi"has been relaxed too much to invoice the rule even in politics n personal matters.

thanx with regards

miss smith sharma{lawyer}



 10 Replies

Majid kachhi (law student)     05 August 2008

Locus-Standi, means your authority to represent or your right to argue...etc.. that means you cant take up a case or represent any issue which does not concern you

V.Raghavan (Advocate Madras High Court)     05 August 2008

Locus Standi - it means the place of standing. It is used to describe the right of appearing in court either as plaintiff or defendant.  The ful form is,"locus standi rectus in judicio", Law breakers are said to be .'no locus standi, before a court of law

K.C.Suresh (Advocate)     06 August 2008

 


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:


  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.           

Worth reading SC’s decision in K.Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police & ors decided on 18-11-03 by J.S.N. Variava & H.K. Sema in TP (Crl) 77-78 of 2003.

Example: The Madras High Court yesterday reserved its order on the early release plea of Nalini, who is serving a life sentence for her involvement in former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi's assassination. Advocate General G. Masilamani told Court that the Government needed time to file a detailed counter affidavit to explain its stand and that it opposed Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy's petition seeking to implead himself in the case opposing her release. Judge S. Nagamuthu reserved his orders on the matter. Appearing for Nalini, her counsel S. Doraiswamy also opposed Swamy's intervention in the matter saying he had no locus standi.

 

Adv.K.C.Suresh, Kerala

K.C.Suresh (Advocate)     06 August 2008

 


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:


  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.           

Worth reading SC’s decision in K.Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police & ors decided on 18-11-03 by J.S.N. Variava & H.K. Sema in TP (Crl) 77-78 of 2003.

Example: The Madras High Court yesterday reserved its order on the early release plea of Nalini, who is serving a life sentence for her involvement in former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi's assassination. Advocate General G. Masilamani told Court that the Government needed time to file a detailed counter affidavit to explain its stand and that it opposed Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy's petition seeking to implead himself in the case opposing her release. Judge S. Nagamuthu reserved his orders on the matter. Appearing for Nalini, her counsel S. Doraiswamy also opposed Swamy's intervention in the matter saying he had no locus standi.

 

Adv.K.C.Suresh, Kerala

smith sharma (lecturer)     06 August 2008

hi,


thanx 2 all of u 4 given me this information.


 miss. smith sharma{lawyer}

Srinivas.B.S.S.T ( Advocate)     06 August 2008

Sir Suresh it was a detailed reply Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge with us.

K.C.Suresh (Advocate)     07 August 2008

Dear Sri, Acknowledging some thing is special. You have done that special. Thank you.

shamit sanyal (advocate)     16 August 2008

thanks to mr suresh


members will be benifited.

Naresha (CEO)     22 September 2011

Hi members......

 

I need to clarification..... If an authority made violation of Law and a lobour objection for the same will fall locaus standi issue ?

If it is not, please provide the judgement copy reference for the same.

 

I need it urgent clarification.

 

*******

 

Naresha

Carlisle Collins (Samaritan)     01 December 2012

If you want to challenge a law, you must first show that you are experiencing harm as a result of the law; is it effecting you adversely? Why do you show an interest in this? Even in Public Interest Litigation, you must demonstrate the purpose of your role. People cannot challenge laws just on principle alone, or because they think the law would harm others. It's like someone involved in a loud argument with his wife, and you butt in with your two-bit opinion. Can you demonstrate a valid reason for your involvement as a third party? Unless the shouting is disturbing you (at 3:00am!), or the language is offensive you have no locus standi! Now if your boss violated a law that the State considers serious, depending upon the type of crime, it is your choice whether you wish to be a "concerned citizen" and report the crime (i.e., become an informant - i.e., a low down, no good, cowardly, back-stabbing RAT!), or you may decide to remain mum since we all have dirt on our backs (and skeletons in the closet). The choice is yours whether you wanna be locust standby or a locussin' rat! Blackmail is a third choice: might even get you a promotion - or a criminal charge as accessory to a crime. Hope this helps; if not, I hope it put a smile on your face and made your day go by easier. Regards ... . :=}}

1 Like

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query