A Latin term meaning "place to stand", referring to the right or capacity of a person to bring a matter before a court. Traditionally only a person whose own legal right has been violated could approach the court.
- Under the classical rule, a petitioner needed a direct, personal and present interest in the dispute to have standing.
- The Supreme Court relaxed this rule from the late 1970s, allowing any public-spirited person or organisation to approach the court on behalf of those unable to do so themselves; this opened the door to concept public interest litigation.
- Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer were key figures in liberalising standing; the S.P. Gupta case (1981, the Judges Transfer case) is a landmark on the expanded view.
- The relaxation lets the court take up issues affecting prisoners, bonded labourers, the environment and other voiceless groups, and even act on a letter or a postcard (epistolary jurisdiction).
- The court guards against misuse: it can reject "publicity interest litigation" or motivated petitions where the petitioner has no genuine public interest.
It is the doctrinal gateway to PIL and judicial activism, a recurring polity concept linking access to justice, the judiciary and Article 32 and 226 remedies.
Locus standi is the right to bring a case; its relaxation enabled PIL but did not abolish standing, since courts still reject motivated or frivolous petitions.
"Place to stand": the right to approach a court; relaxed from the late 1970s to enable public interest litigation (S.P. Gupta, 1981).