Locus Standi and Epistolary Jurisdiction
Chapter Fifty-Five
Syllabus topic 3, "Judicial Process in India"
Pages 223 to 226 of 356
In one line
Two rules were changed, one about who may complain and one about how, and between them they brought a population into court that had never been in one.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: locus standi is the standing required to invoke the jurisdiction of a court. The traditional rule was that only a person whose own legal right had been infringed could sue. Epistolary jurisdiction is the practice by which a court treats a letter addressed to it, or to a judge, as a writ petition. The first change decided who may come; the second decided how, and together they are the procedural foundation of public interest litigation.
The traditional rule and why it existed
The rule. Only a person aggrieved may sue. A stranger has no standing however serious the wrong.
Its justifications, which are real. It keeps courts from being flooded by people with no stake; it ensures the case is presented by somebody with an interest in presenting it well; it prevents officious interference in disputes belonging to others; and it keeps the judicial function tied to the resolution of concrete disputes.
Its failure in Indian conditions. Where the person aggrieved is a bonded labourer, the rule means the wrong is not litigated at all. The rule assumes an aggrieved person who is able to sue, and the whole problem was that he was not.
The relaxation
S.P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, is the case.
Facts. Writ petitions filed in different High Courts and transferred under Article 139A challenged the Law Minister's circular on the consent of additional judges, the non-extension of the terms of certain additional judges, and the transfer of two High Court judges. Advocates who were not themselves affected brought the petitions, so their standing was in question.
Held. Where a legal wrong is caused to a person or a determinate class who by reason of poverty, disability or a socially or economically disadvantaged position cannot approach the court, any member of the public acting bona fide may move the court under Article 226 or Article 32. On appointments the majority held that consultation with the Chief Justice does not mean concurrence and that the ultimate power rests with the Central Government.
Why it matters here. Note the conditions, which students omit and which are the whole of the rule. The wrong must be to a determinate person or class; the reason they cannot come must be poverty, disability or a socially or economically disadvantaged position; and the applicant must be acting bona fide. It is not a rule that anyone may litigate anything.
Locus Standi and Epistolary Jurisdiction
Epistolary jurisdiction
What it is. A letter is treated as a petition. No court fee, no form, no advocate, no affidavit in the first instance.
The justification. Article 32 speaks of moving the Supreme Court "by appropriate proceedings" and prescribes no form. If the form were prescriptive, a prisoner without means could never invoke a fundamental right.
The authorities. Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579, and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802.
Sunil Batra (II) came first.
Facts. A prisoner in Tihar Jail wrote a letter to a judge of the Supreme Court alleging that a fellow prisoner was being tortured by a head warder to extract money from his relatives. The letter was treated as a petition.
Held. A letter from a prisoner may be treated as a proceeding; the writ of habeas corpus may be used not only to secure release but to protect a prisoner against inhuman treatment inside the prison; and the court retains a continuing responsibility over the conditions of detention. Directions were laid down including judicial appraisal by the Sessions Judge before solitary confinement or the withdrawal of privileges, the Prison Manual being kept within prisoners' reach, grievance boxes in prisons, and regular visits and reports by Sessions Judges.
Why it matters here. It is the earliest clear instance, and the facts show why the device was necessary: the prisoner who was being tortured could not have filed anything, and the letter came from another prisoner on his behalf.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha settled the objections. That a letter cannot be a writ petition, that no fundamental right of the petitioner was infringed, that a commission cannot be appointed in an Article 32 proceeding, and that ex parte reports have no evidentiary value were all rejected: Article 32 prescribes no particular form, commissioners may be appointed because otherwise the poor could never prove their case, and their reports are material on which the Court may act after the parties have had an opportunity to respond.
The third device: fact-finding by commission
Standing and form get the case into court; they do not prove it. Where the petitioner is a stranger and the facts are inside a State institution, the ordinary rules of proof defeat the petition.
The answer was the commissioner: a judicial officer, an advocate, a journalist or an expert appointed by the court to visit, inspect and report. Bandhua Mukti Morcha holds that this is permissible and that the reports are material the Court may act on, after the parties have had an opportunity to respond, which preserves natural justice.
The limits, which are as examinable as the relaxation
Bona fides is required. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420, dismissed a petition with costs where the petitioner's real object was to obtain slurry for himself.
Locus Standi and Epistolary Jurisdiction
A stranger with no interest and no disadvantaged class behind him has no standing. Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305.
Facts. An advocate who was a stranger to the proceedings sought to intervene in the Bofors investigation while it was still at the stage of investigation, invoking the public interest jurisdiction.
Held. He had no locus standi: though a member of a noble profession, he had no direct interest in the investigation and suffered no special loss, and the doors of the court would not be opened to him at that stage. Only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest may move the court in public interest, and petitions by busybodies, meddlesome interlopers and persons with an oblique motive must be rejected.
Why it matters here. It is the other edge of S.P. Gupta and belongs beside it in any answer, because the relaxation was for those who cannot come, not for anybody who wishes to come.
Credentials must be verified. State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402, directs the High Courts to frame rules requiring verification of the petitioner's credentials and prima facie verification of the correctness of the contents, and the imposition of exemplary costs on frivolous petitions.
A worked example
A lawyer reads that inmates of a State mental health institution are kept in chains.
Standing. He is a stranger, but the inmates are a determinate class who cannot approach the court by reason of disability. S.P. Gupta gives him standing if he acts bona fide.
Form. A letter suffices, on Sunil Batra (II) and Bandhua Mukti Morcha.
Proof. He cannot enter the institution. The court may appoint a commissioner to visit and report.
Natural justice. The State must have an opportunity to respond to the report before it is acted on.
If his real object were to embarrass a rival. Standing would fail on Janata Dal and costs could follow on Subhash Kumar.
Quick revision
- Locus standi: standing to sue. Traditional rule, only a person aggrieved.
- S.P. Gupta relaxes it on three conditions: a determinate person or class; inability to come by reason of poverty, disability or disadvantage; and a bona fide applicant.
- Epistolary jurisdiction: a letter treated as a petition, justified by "appropriate proceedings" in Article 32.
- Sunil Batra (II), AIR 1980 SC 1579, is the earliest clear instance; Bandhua Mukti Morcha settled the objections.
- Commissioners supply fact-finding where a stranger cannot prove conditions inside a State institution; the parties must have an opportunity to respond.
- Limits: bona fides required, Subhash Kumar; busybodies excluded, Janata Dal; credentials verified and costs imposed, Chaufal.
- No right was expanded by any of this; only the machinery changed, which is why MU calls it a tool of judicial creativity.
Locus Standi and Epistolary Jurisdiction
Test yourself
1. State the three conditions of the relaxed rule of standing. That a legal wrong has been caused to a person or a determinate class; that they cannot approach the court themselves by reason of poverty, disability or a socially or economically disadvantaged position; and that the person moving the court is a member of the public acting bona fide.
2. What is epistolary jurisdiction and what in the text justifies it? The practice of treating a letter addressed to the court or to a judge as a writ petition. Article 32 provides for moving the Supreme Court "by appropriate proceedings" and prescribes no form, so a prescriptive requirement of form would put the fundamental right beyond a person without means, which is the reasoning in Bandhua Mukti Morcha.
3. Why is fact-finding by commission necessary once standing and form have been relaxed? Because standing and form get the case into court and do not prove it. Where the petitioner is a stranger and the facts lie inside a State institution he cannot enter, the ordinary rules of proof would defeat the petition, so the court appoints a commissioner to inspect and report, the parties being given an opportunity to respond before the report is acted on.
4. Give the case that marks the other edge of S.P. Gupta and state its rule. Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305, where an advocate who was a stranger sought to intervene in an investigation. He had no direct interest and suffered no special loss, so he had no standing; only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest may move the court in public interest, and busybodies, meddlesome interlopers and persons with an oblique motive must be rejected.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.