Administrative Law is primarily concerned with controlling administrative power and protecting individuals against arbitrary, unreasonable, or unlawful actions of the State. In a democratic welfare State, administrative authorities exercise vast discretionary powers that directly affect the rights, interests, and livelihoods of citizens. For Administrative Law to function effectively, affected persons must have meaningful access to justice. This is where the concept of standing, also known as locus standi, becomes crucial.
Traditionally, courts followed restrictive rules of standing, allowing only a person who had suffered a direct legal injury to approach the court. Over time, it was realized that such restrictive rules often defeat justice, especially in administrative matters affecting disadvantaged and marginalized sections of society. Therefore, the statement “Restrictive rules of standing are antithesis to a healthy system of administrative law” rightly emphasizes the need for liberal standing rules to ensure accountability, fairness, and rule of law.
Meaning of Standing (Locus Standi)
Standing or locus standi refers to the legal capacity of a person to bring an action before a court. It determines who is entitled to be heard in judicial proceedings.
Under traditional principles, only a person who suffered a direct and personal injury could challenge administrative action. This narrow approach limited judicial scrutiny of administrative decisions and allowed misuse of power to go unchecked.
In Administrative Law, standing is not merely a procedural rule; it is a gateway to justice and an instrument for enforcing legality in governance.
Traditional Restrictive Rules of Standing
Under the traditional approach, courts insisted on the following:
- The petitioner must show a direct legal injury
- Mere interest or concern was insufficient
- Public-spirited persons had no right to sue
- Collective or diffuse injuries were ignored
This approach was suitable for private law disputes but proved inadequate in administrative law matters, where State actions often affect large sections of society who lack the resources or awareness to approach courts.
Why Restrictive Standing Is Antithetical to Administrative Law
Administrative Law aims to ensure control over administrative discretion and protection of public interest. Restrictive standing rules undermine these objectives for several reasons.
Administrative Actions Often Affect the Poor and Vulnerable
Many administrative decisions affect:
- Slum dwellers
- Prisoners
- Bonded labourers
- Migrant workers
- Environmental victims
These groups often lack the means or knowledge to seek judicial remedies. Restrictive standing prevents courts from addressing genuine administrative injustice.
Weakens Judicial Control Over Administration
Judicial review is a cornerstone of Administrative Law. If standing is restricted, unlawful administrative actions may go unchallenged, allowing arbitrariness and abuse of power to flourish.
Defeats Public Interest Protection
Administrative decisions often involve public resources, environmental protection, and governance issues. Restrictive standing ignores collective rights and public interest, which are central to modern administrative governance.
Inconsistent with Constitutional Values
The Indian Constitution emphasizes justice, equality, and rule of law. Narrow standing rules conflict with:
- Article 14 (non-arbitrariness)
- Article 21 (access to justice)
- Directive Principles of State Policy
A healthy administrative system requires open access to courts.
Evolution of Liberal Standing in India
Recognizing the limitations of restrictive standing, Indian courts gradually evolved a liberal approach, particularly in administrative law cases.
The Supreme Court of India played a transformative role in expanding standing rules to ensure social justice and administrative accountability.
Judicial Recognition of Liberal Standing
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
This landmark case laid the foundation of liberal standing. The Supreme Court held that any public-spirited person acting bona fide can approach the court to redress public injury or enforce public duty.
The Court emphasized that restrictive locus standi is incompatible with constitutional governance in a welfare State.
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India
The Court held that workers had standing to challenge the sale of public assets, recognizing that public property and public interest demand judicial oversight even if personal injury is not shown.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
The Court allowed a public-spirited organization to file a petition on behalf of bonded labourers, observing that procedural technicalities should not obstruct substantive justice.
This case strengthened the role of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in administrative law.
Manubhai Shah v. Life Insurance Corporation of India
The Court recognized the right of citizens to challenge administrative actions that affect freedom of expression and public communication, even without personal injury.
Public Interest Litigation and Administrative Law
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is the most significant outcome of liberal standing rules. PIL allows:
- Relaxation of locus standi
- Representation of disadvantaged groups
- Judicial monitoring of administration
- Enforcement of constitutional and statutory duties
In administrative law, PIL has been used to challenge:
- Illegal administrative policies
- Environmental violations
- Corruption and misuse of power
- Failure of public authorities to perform duties
Thus, liberal standing strengthens democratic governance.
Balance Between Liberal Standing and Abuse
While liberal standing is essential, courts have also cautioned against misuse. Frivolous, motivated, or publicity-oriented petitions can burden the judiciary and hinder administration.
Therefore, courts adopt safeguards such as:
- Bona fide requirement
- Rejection of private or political motives
- Imposition of costs for abuse
This balanced approach preserves the health of administrative law.
Comparative Perspective
In jurisdictions like the U.K. and U.S.A., courts have also moved towards broader standing in administrative matters, particularly where public interest and constitutional rights are involved. This global trend reinforces the view that restrictive standing is outdated in modern administrative systems.
Importance of Liberal Standing in a Healthy Administrative System
A liberal approach to standing:
- Strengthens rule of law
- Enhances administrative accountability
- Protects marginalized communities
- Encourages transparency
- Promotes participatory governance
Without accessible standing rules, administrative law would become ineffective and disconnected from social realities.
Mnemonic to Remember the Concept
“L.O.C.U.S.”
L – Liberal standing
O – Open access to justice
C – Control over administration
U – Upholding public interest
S – Social justice focus
Or a simpler one:
“P.I.L.”
P – Public interest priority
I – Inclusive locus standi
L – Limiting arbitrary power
About Lawgnan
Understanding locus standi and the importance of liberal standing is crucial for mastering Administrative Law and answering problem questions effectively in exams. To access more such exam-ready, concept-based, and judicially supported legal notes, visit lawgana.in. Lawgana provides simplified explanations, landmark case summaries, mnemonics, and constitutional analysis specially designed for Indian law students, judiciary aspirants, and competitive exam candidates. Whether you are preparing for university exams, judiciary services, or entrance tests, lawgana.in helps you understand Administrative Law with clarity and confidence. Start strengthening your legal foundation today at lawgana.in.
