Skip to main content

Locus Standi

 Locus Standi 

Locus Standi is a Latin term which means place to stand, the right or ability to bring a legal action to a court of law, or to appear in a court. The maxim refer s to the right of a party or whom is going to sue is the write of this party to appear and be heard before the court of law or to institute s suit or an action before the court. Like an individual cannot bring a complaint challenging the constitutionality of a law, unless someone can show that they have been harmed or affected by the law. Contrarily the court would conclude that the complaint locus Standi to file the complaint, and will reject the lawsuit without even taking into consideration, the validity of the unconstitutionality provision raised by her. 

In talking to legal manner the locos Standi means the essential applies to a plaintiff attempt to show to the court that there is an ample relation or correlation or a cause of action to the plaintiffs from the suit. In other term it says that it applies to a person capacity to put a case before the court of law or to testify before the court of law. 

Some case law related to it was in the case M/S boc India ltd. vs. the state of Jharkhand and ors, there was a writ petition filed before the Hc of Jharkhand at Ranchi which was by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed, holding that BOC has no locus Standi to file a write petition as admittedly tax was payable by Tisco. The court held that when it is to be believed that the assesses is an aggrieved party to challenges the legitimacy of the complaint presented thereon, it would have the locus Standi to retain a formal grievance.  

The SC of united state has confirmed that in essence the question of locus Standi is whether the litigant is entitle to have the court determine the merits of the case or specific issue. The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic. There must be a casual connection between the injury and conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenge action of the defendant and not the result of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court. 

In Indian context an individual whose constitutional or legal right is been violated may seek relief under section 226 of the Indian constitution according to tradition however the Supreme Court has recently liberalized the Locus Standi clause. The court now allows public-spirited individual to file a write petition for protection of every other person classes constitution and statuary right even through that person or class is unable to claim the Hc jurisdiction due to poverty or any other social economic impairment.     
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more