New Delhi: On day 11 of the Sabarimala reference hearings Tuesday, the Supreme Court questioned the locus standi of the Indian Young Lawyer’s Association (IYLA) in filing the original public interest litigation (PIL) in 2006 against the tradition restricting the entry of women of menstruating age into the Kerala shrine.
A Constitution Bench of the court is currently examining seven legal questions concerning religious rights and freedoms in India, and the reference arises from the SC’s 2018 verdict that allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple.
Questioning the basis on which the PIL was entertained at the first instance, the nine-judge bench asked pointed questions of IYLA’s advocate, Ravi Prakash Gupta. The advocate had at the outset submitted four news reports which were the basis of the PIL.
Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B.V. Nagarathna and M.M. Sundresh expressed concerns about a non-believer questioning religious beliefs and a PIL filed on the basis of news reports. Earlier, on day 2, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had also questioned the locus standi of the IYLA.
Hence, the question that has been repeatedly asked is, why a body oriented to professional legal causes should become the primary challenger of a “denominational religious practice”?
Locus standi is a legal principle —meaning “place to stand” in Latin—that defines the right of a party to appear and be heard by a court. Traditionally, a narrow construction of the concept allowed only a person whose legal rights had been directly affected to approach the court.
In India, this concept has evolved with the introduction of PILs. Locus standi has come to be interpreted broadly, allowing “public-spirited” individuals and organisations to approach the Supreme Court on behalf of disadvantaged sections of society.
While PILs are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the concept has been judicially developed through the idea of “participative justice” and a liberal interpretation of writ jurisdiction and fundamental rights.
Also Read: Sabarimala reference in SC: Managing board wants temple’s rights to prevail over individual’s rights
Concept of locus standi
The birth of PILs in India can be traced back to the case of Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar (1979). In this case, regarding prison conditions in Bihar, the court allowed advocate Pushpa Hingorani to act on behalf of the aggrieved prisoners. This was one of the earliest examples of the court broadening the concept of locus standi.
The 1980s witnessed the establishment of the PIL-locus standi judicial doctrine, with multiple landmark decisions shaping its intricacies.
In S.P. Gupta vs Union of India (1981) or the “First Judges case”, a five-judge bench accorded standing to “public spirited” individuals, allowing them to approach the courts on behalf of aggrieved persons.
“If public duties are to be enforced and social collective ‘diffused’ rights and interests are to be protected, we have to utilise the initiative and zeal of public-minded persons and organisations by allowing them to move the court and act for a general or group interest, even though, they may not be directly injured in their own rights,” the court said.
In Peoples Union for Democratic Rights vs Union of India (1982), the court relaxed the rules of locus standi, allowing organisations to act on behalf of poor and marginalised workers who cannot access courts themselves.
Similarly, in Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India (1984), the court confirmed the locus standi of NGOs, holding that “…whenever there is a violation of a fundamental right, anyone can move the Supreme Court for enforcement of such fundamental right”.
While such landmark Supreme Court cases have established the broad interpretation of locus standi for public interest; over time, the court has also repeatedly warned of vexatious litigation in the guise of PILs.
In the landmark S.P. Gupta case itself, while broadening locus standi, the court emphasised that only bona-fide cases should be allowed, and left it to the discretion of the court to decide the locus standi on an individual case basis.
In Janata Dal vs H.S. Chowdhary (1992), it was held that “courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration”.
Guidelines for weeding out frivolous petitions were laid down by the court in State of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010). It was held that before admitting a PIL, the petitioner’s credentials and the petition’s contents must be verified, and the presence of genuine and substantial public interest must be ensured.
Further, the court said that frivolous or ulterior‑motive petitions must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs. The goal was stated to be the maintenance of PILs as a tool for genuine public redressal.
In the Sabarimala reference hearings, Chief Justice Surya Kant acknowledged this increased caution exercised by the court in entertaining PILs.
In response to the concerns expressed by the Solicitor General about the misuse of PIL, the CJI emphasised that the court now rigorously tests the “real cause” because people often approach courts with “external agendas”.
Saumya Sharma is an alum of ThePrint School of Journalism and an intern with ThePrint
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: With Sabarimala ruling, Supreme Court is doing its bit to push back patriarchy