S.P. Gupta v Union of India

Facts

Known as the 'Judges Transfer Case', the petition raised questions about the independence of the judiciary, the transfer and non-confirmation of judges, and the executive's role in judicial appointments. A threshold objection was that lawyers and others petitioning had no locus standi as their own rights were not infringed. The Court used the occasion to authoritatively relax the traditional rule of standing.

Issues

• Whether a person whose own legal or fundamental right is not infringed has locus standi to maintain a writ petition for 'public injury'.
• Whether the rigid traditional rule of standing applies to public law litigation under Articles 32 and 226.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that public-spirited citizens with sufficient interest should be permitted to vindicate public wrongs since the essential purpose of public law review is the control of administrative action, not merely enforcement of private rights. The respondents contended that only a person whose own right was violated could invoke writ jurisdiction.

Held

The Court held that any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of a constitutional or legal provision, and may even move the court by a simple letter. Procedure is the handmaid of justice and rigid formulae must yield in a country marked by poverty and exploitation. Standing is extended to anyone who is not a mere busybody or meddlesome interloper but who has genuine, non-mala-fide interest. Justiciability of an issue and standing to agitate it are two distinct things.

Ratio decidendi

The traditional rule of locus standi stands liberalised: a person with sufficient interest, acting bona fide and not for personal gain or political motive, has standing to bring public interest litigation for redress of public injury under Articles 32 and 226.

Significance

The foundational decision establishing the doctrine of locus standi liberalisation and epistolary jurisdiction in Indian PIL; it transformed access to justice and remains the leading authority cited in virtually all subsequent PIL jurisprudence.

Related