S SHYAMPRASAD RAO Vs. UNION GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The concept of locus standi has had a steady refinement by the law Courts over the years. With the changing staicturc of the society and complexities in life, mere was matter of fact an ardent effort on the part of the judiciary to liberalise the concept of locus standi. On the wake of 21st Century, probably a rigid insistence on the strict rules of the concept of the locus standi cannot but be termed to be opposed to the present day concept of justice. Needless to record, however, that with the changing structure of the society, the concept of justice has also had a very wide change. The observations of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Gupta and others v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, lend support to the view expressed above. Bhagwaihi, J., (as His Lordship then was) very succinctly observed: "Today a vast revolution is taking place in the judicial process; the theatre of the law is fast changing and the problems of the poor are coming to the forefront. The Court has to innovate new methods and devise new strategies for the purpose of providing access to justice to large masses of people who are denied their basic human rights and to whom freedom and liberty has no meaning. The only way in which this can be done is by entertaining writ petitions and even letters from public spirited individuals seeking judicial redress for the benefit of persons who have suffered a legal wrong or a legal injury or whose constitutional or legal right has been violated but who by reason of their poverty or socially economically disadvantaged position arc unable to approach the Court for relief. It is in this spirit that the Court has been entertaining letters for judicial redress and treating them as writ petitions and we hope and trust that the High Courts of the country will also adopt this pro-active, goal-oriented approach.''Btiagwathi, J., went on to observe : "If t/*-

(2.) Incidentally, the observations of the high powered Committee constituted by the Government of India, which included two very distinguished Judges of the Supreme Court of India, viz., Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna lyer ought also to be noted here. The Committee observed:

(3.) Public interest litigation constitutes in die present-day judicial system a significant step. While it is true that this new concept has provided the law Courts with much greater responsibility for rendering the concept of justice available to the disadvantaged section of the society, but this new phenomenon has overloaded the law Courts rendering the ordinary litigants to wait for a further period of time. Law's delay is not unknown, specially in the Indian sub-continent and this additional responsibility of the law Courts will render the burden more awesome. As such, in the fitness of things, the law Courts, though should normally entertain these litigations, but great care and caution ought to be exercised 91 the matter of exercise of jurisdiction under this new phenomenon in our jurisprudential system. The oppressed and the depressed peoples' interest ought to be looked into with care and caution by the law Courts so that justice is made available to the one who cannot afford the luxury of litigation inspite of violations of his rights as guaranteed under the Constitution. It is, here however, that Chief Justice Mukharji in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umedh Ram, (1986) 2 SCC 68, did administer a very serious caution. Chief Justice Mukharji observed: