Under what circumstances, does a third party, apart from concerned parties, have locus standi to move writ petitions before the High Court or the Supreme Court in India? Also point out the limitations of such petitions.

Understanding Locus Standi and its Evolution

Initially, locus standi was a strict requirement. Only those with a direct and tangible injury could file a writ petition under Article 32 (for the Supreme Court) or Article 226 (for the High Court). This was designed to prevent courts from becoming embroiled in hypothetical or generalized grievances.

Circumstances Allowing Third Parties to File Writ Petitions

The Supreme Court, through various judgments, has relaxed the traditional concept of locus standi. A third party can now approach the court under the following circumstances:

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): This is the most common avenue. A person or organization can file a PIL on behalf of a disadvantaged or vulnerable section of society who are unable to approach the court themselves. This includes those who are economically or socially backward, illiterate, or otherwise disadvantaged. The rationale is to ensure access to justice for those who cannot fight for their rights.
• Violation of Fundamental Rights: If a third party demonstrates that the actions of a public authority infringe upon the fundamental rights of others, they may be granted locus standi. This is often seen in cases involving environmental pollution or human rights violations.
• Environmental Protection: Any person having a reasonable apprehension that environmental protection is being violated can approach the court. This is enshrined in Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) which includes the right to a clean environment.
• Consumer Protection: Consumer forums and courts are designed to allow redressal of grievances for consumers. While not strictly writ petitions, the principles are similar in allowing a third party to raise concerns on behalf of consumers.
• Social Justice Concerns: In cases involving social justice issues, such as bonded labor, child labor, or discrimination, the court may allow a third party to represent the affected individuals.
• Judicial Activism: The courts have, on occasion, relaxed locus standi in situations where a genuine public grievance exists and the court feels compelled to intervene to ensure justice.

Key Judgments Shaping Third-Party Locus Standi

Several landmark judgments have shaped the understanding of third-party locus standi:

• Alakh Bharati v. State of Rajasthan (1997): This case laid down guidelines for PILs, emphasizing that the petitioner must demonstrate a genuine public interest and not be acting as a busybody or for personal gain. It cautioned against frivolous PILs.
• Nikhil S. Deo v. Union of India (2003): The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of maintaining judicial restraint and emphasized that locus standi should not be easily granted.
• Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha (2006): This case highlighted the importance of environmental protection and allowed a third party to challenge illegal construction activities.

Limitations on Third-Party Locus Standi

Despite the liberalization of locus standi, several limitations exist to prevent abuse and maintain judicial efficiency:

• Genuine Public Interest: The petitioner must demonstrate a genuine public interest and not be motivated by personal gain or vendetta.
• Maintainability of the Petition: The court assesses whether the petition raises a substantial question of law or fact in the public interest.
• Absence of Frivolity: The court can dismiss a petition as frivolous if it is found to be vexatious, scandalous, or aimed at harassing the respondent.
• Alternative Remedy: If an effective alternative remedy is available through other forums (e.g., administrative tribunals, consumer courts), the court may decline to entertain the writ petition.
• Verification of Information: The court may require the petitioner to verify the information presented in the petition.
• Impersonation: The petitioner must genuinely represent the interests of the affected parties and cannot impersonate them.

Table: Comparison of Traditional and Liberalized Locus Standi

Feature	Traditional Locus Standi	Liberalized Locus Standi (PIL)
Who can file?	Only those directly affected	Individuals or organizations representing disadvantaged groups
Focus	Specific grievance of an individual	Systemic issues affecting public interest
Scope	Narrow	Broad
Motivation	Personal redressal	Public welfare