Table of Contents
The principle of locus standi is a fundamental aspect of procedural law, determining who has the legal right to bring a case before a court. As a procedural requirement, it ensures that only those with a legitimate interest in a legal matter can initiate litigation. Traditionally, courts have required that a person filing a lawsuit must have suffered a direct legal injury or have a legally protected interest at stake. This restriction helps prevent frivolous lawsuits and ensures judicial efficiency.
However, with the rise of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), many legal systems, including Nepal's, have relaxed the strict interpretation of locus standi in matters concerning public welfare. This shift allows courts to hear cases that affect broader societal interests rather than just individual grievances. While the principle remains a procedural safeguard, its evolution reflects the judiciary’s role in upholding justice, especially for marginalized communities and larger public concerns.
The principle of locus standi refers to the legal right of an individual or entity to bring a case before a court. Traditionally, this doctrine required a person to have a direct and personal interest in the subject matter of the dispute to file a lawsuit. However, over time, many legal systems have evolved to adopt a more liberal approach, especially in cases concerning public interest litigation (PIL).
In jurisdictions such as Nepal, courts have expanded the concept of locus standi to allow concerned individuals or organizations to seek judicial intervention in matters affecting fundamental rights, social justice, and governance. This shift has played a crucial role in enhancing access to justice for marginalized groups who may not be able to represent themselves. The principle thus balances judicial efficiency with the need for broader societal justice, ensuring that courts can address issues of public importance even when the aggrieved parties cannot approach them directly.
Locus Standi means the right to bring an action, to be heard in court, or to address the court on a matter before it. The principle of locus standi is the set of principles that governs whether an individual or group may bring an action in court concerning a specific issue. This is a fundamental issue, as the rules regarding standing directly affect the ability of individuals and groups to approach the courts for the vindication of their substantive and procedural rights
The rule in regard to locus standi is that only a person who has suffered the legal injury, ie, his/her legal right or legally protected interest has been violated by an act or omission of another person, can come to the court for judicial redress. A suit with a claim on any matter shall be entertained only if it is filed by a person who has locus standi on that matter, as stated by Muluki Civil Procedure Code 2074 Sec 10. The principle of locus standi defines who can file a lawsuit in different sorts of cases. A person aggrieved is usually one who has a right and that right is infringed or whose interest is likely to be or is jeopardized.
Although the court considers locus standi as a basic element of lawsuits, there are certain exceptions to this principle. In cases involving the interest or concern of the government of Nepal or public interest, any member of the public generally can enter into the court after taking permission from the court as stated by Muluki Civil Procedure Code 2074 Sec 91.
The following person who is not able to file a complaint, statement of defense, or memorandum of appeal or application on any subject matter, the guardian of such person may do so on behalf of such persons:
- Minor who has not attained the age of majority under the law or
- Despite attaining the legal age of majority, a person who is infirm due to old age, with visual or speech impairment, of unsound mind or
- If a person disappears or has gone abroad, but return is uncertain
Liberalization of Locus Standi in Public Interest Litigation
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a legal mechanism that allows individuals, groups, or organizations to approach the court to seek justice on matters affecting the public interest, especially for those who are marginalized or unable to access the legal system. Unlike traditional litigation, where only an aggrieved party can file a case, PIL enables any concerned citizen to seek judicial intervention in issues related to human rights, environmental protection, corruption, governance, and social justice.
PIL originated as a tool to enhance access to justice and hold governments accountable. Courts in many countries, including Nepal and India, have actively accepted PILs to address violations of fundamental rights and enforce legal and constitutional duties. However, to prevent abuse, courts often examine whether the petitioner has a genuine public interest and whether the case is not filed for personal or political motives.
The concept of locus standi discussed above is the traditional concept applicable in private interest litigation as the nature of litigation in courts in the early days was essentially contractual.
In public interest litigation, courts accept litigation filed by public-spirited individuals for the protection of public interest. The judiciary extended its jurisdiction by entertaining PIL jurisdiction in litigation filed by public-spirited individuals for the protection of public rights or the rights of underprivileged classes of society. The court brought the enforcement of fundamental rights within reach of the weaker section of society. The judiciary relaxed the rule of traditional standing and also moved ahead of the traditional adversarial model of litigation. However, the court has developed some criteria for entertaining public interest cases. These criteria are meaningful relation and substantial interest.
The principle of locus standi has evolved significantly, shifting from a strict requirement of personal legal interest to a more inclusive approach, particularly in Public Interest Litigation (PIL). This transformation has expanded access to justice, allowing individuals and organizations to advocate for fundamental rights and social justice. By relaxing traditional standing rules, courts, particularly in Nepal and India, have empowered public-spirited individuals to challenge governmental inaction, human rights violations, and social injustices.
However, despite this liberalization, judicial scrutiny remains essential to prevent the misuse of PIL for personal or political gains. Courts ensure that only cases with genuine public interest are entertained. The balance between accessibility and judicial efficiency is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the legal system. Thus, the evolving principle of locus standi continues to serve as a powerful tool in safeguarding rights and ensuring justice for those who otherwise might not have legal representation.