S.P. Gupta v Union of India (Supreme Court, 1981) — the Judges' Transfer case and the birth of public interest litigation

Bhagwati J.'s paragraphs on locus standi are the charter of public interest litigation in India. They explain why the strict rule of standing was relaxed, who may sue, who may not, and why a letter may be treated as a petition.

The Union Law Minister issued a circular to the Chief Ministers of the States asking them to obtain from additional judges of the High Courts, and from persons recommended for appointment, their consent to be appointed to a High Court other than their own, in the interest of national integration. Petitions were filed in several High Courts by practising lawyers and others, alleging that the circular, short-term extensions given to additional judges of the Delhi High Court, and the transfer of two Chief Justices eroded the independence of the judiciary. The petitions were transferred to the Supreme Court and heard by seven judges: A.C. Gupta, Fazal Ali, Tulzapurkar, Desai, Pathak, Bhagwati and Venkataramiah JJ. A preliminary objection was taken that the lawyer-petitioners had suffered no legal injury and had no locus standi.

Who may maintain a petition for the redress of a public wrong, where no specific legal injury has been caused to the petitioner?

The public wrong. Where a legal injury is caused only to the public interest, "the question arises as to who can maintain an action for vindicating the rule of law and setting aside the unlawful action or enforcing the performance of the public duty. If no one can maintain an action for redress of such public wrong or public injury, it would be disastrous for the rule of law, for it would be open to the State or a public authority to act with impunity beyond the scope of its power or in breach of a public duty owed by it."

The rule of standing relaxed. "whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the State or a public authority which is contrary to the Constitution or the law, any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of such public wrong or public injury. The strict rule of standing which insists that only a person who has suffered a specific legal injury can maintain an action for judicial redress is relaxed and a broad rule is evolved which gives standing to any member of the public who is not a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper but who has sufficient interest in the proceeding." The risk of action by any citizen "will induce the State or such public authority to act with greater responsibility and care".

Letters, and the limit. The Court had been "entertaining letters for judicial redress and treating them as writ petitions", and hoped the High Courts would adopt the same approach. But the person who moves the court "must be acting bona fide with a view to vindicating the cause of justice and if he is acting for personal gain or private profit or out of political motivation or other oblique consideration, the court should not allow itself to be activised at the instance of such person and must reject his application at the threshold, whether it be in the form of a letter addressed to the court or even in the form of a regular writ petition filed in court."

The lawyers, with their interest in the independence of the courts in which they practised, had standing.

For a public wrong, standing is not confined to a person who has suffered a specific legal injury; any member of the public acting bona fide with sufficient interest may sue, and a letter may be treated as a petition. Busybodies and those acting for private gain or political motive are turned away at the threshold. Chaufal (2010) later added directions to check abuse.