Locus standi means a person who approached the court should show himself

that he suffered a legal injury.

The Locus standi says that a Writ can be filed by an effected person.
However, in case of Mandamus and Certiorari, it can be filed by any person
having a common interest with the case. Mere interest is generally not
sufficient to file the writ. The person should have more interest than that of an
ordinary member.
A common citizen has the right to challenge an election if it is held contrary to
the provisions of law.

Related Cases / Recent Cases

R vs Inland Revenue Commissioner, (1981) 2 WLR 722: The House of Lords

has laid down guidelines for determining as to whether or not the petitioner
has 'sufficient interest' in a matter.
Veena Sethi vs State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 339; Upendra Buxi vs State of UP
(1983) 2 SCC 308; People's Union for Democratic Rights vs Union of India,
AIR 1982 SC 1473; Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India, AIR 1984 SC
802: Court relaxed the traditional rule of locus standi and even accepted a
letter addressed to it as a Writ.

Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180: The narrow
concept of Cause of Action and person aggrieved and individual litigation is
becoming obsolescent in some jurisdiction.

Fertilizer Corporation Union vs Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344: The

concept of Ubi jus ibi remedium must be enlarged to embrace all interests of
public-minded citizens or organisations with serious concern for conservation
of public resources and the direction and correction of public power so as to
promote justice.

A shareholder can sue for the infringement of a juristic person's rights if he

can show that his personal rights are directly and substantially adversely
affected by the action.

Biswajeet Sinha v Dibrugarh University, AIR 1991 Gau 27

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.