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