Locus Standi Has Widening the Scope of Public Interest Litigation

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahesh R. Halde
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
Locus Standi

Part VI Rights—Structure and Scope, Ch.37 Public Interest Litigation

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Divan Shyam
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Character

This chapter examines public interest litigation (PIL) and its place in Indian constitutional law. The chapter begins with an overview of PIL as an instrument for dealing with public grievances such as flagrant human rights violations by the State, or for vindicating the public policies embodied in statutes or constitutional provisions. It then discusses the evolution of PIL in India and four distinct factors that contributed to its growth. It also explores how courts efficiently deploy judicial resources and decide genuine disputes of a legal character by recognising only those persons with locus standi, or legal standing. Finally, it describes a range of procedural innovations that distinguish PIL from conventional litigation and explains how the growth of PIL affected traditional notions of justiciability. It shows how the phenomenon of PIL has shaped both the nature of rights-based claims within Indian constitutional law as well as the role of the Supreme Court within Indian democracy.

scholarly journals DEATH OF LOCUS STANDI AND THE REBIRTH OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN NIGERIA: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES 2009 IN FOCUS

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Raheem Kolawole Salman ◽  
F.J Oniekoro
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
X Ray ◽  
The Past ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Phase Out

One of the various mechanisms put in place in order to address human rights abuses in Nigeria is the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979. However, the Rules were punctuated with different challenges and defects ranging from the problems of locus standi to unacceptability of public interest litigation. In an attempt to address this problem, the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 was enacted. This article engages in a critical assessment of the 2009 Rules with a view to ascertaining the extent to which the Rules have come to cure the 1979 Rules. The article begins with a critical examination of defects inherent in the 1979 Rules. It goes further to x-ray the developments brought by the 2009 Rules. The article posits that the 2009 Rules have come as a leverage to problems which have, in the past, denied many litigants the opportunity to enforce their rights and claim compensation. It concludes that if properly implemented, the 2009 Rules will phase out the identified defects and strengthen public interest litigation in the areas of human rights enforcement.

scholarly journals Misuse Of Public Interest Litigation: A Critical Study As How It Is A Major Threat To Judiciary

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (I) ◽  
pp. 21-26
Author(s):  
Dr. Ganesh Dubey ◽  
Niharika Vyas
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The Other ◽  
Critical Study ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
High Court ◽  
Major Threat ◽  
Locus Standi

Regardless of how much advancement PILs have brought to the Indian Judicial framework, we can't unseen the other side of the coin at any expense as PILs are being mishandled a great deal these days alongside its broad and manhandled use. They have brought different traps and downsides as well. Thusly, to keep away from such instances of maltreatment of the PILs, the high court itself set out a definite rule that will be utilized to administer the administration and removal of the PILs. Numerous PIL activists in India have been utilizing the PILs as a helpful apparatus for pestering the legal framework. Since recording PILs is a modest cycle, numerous unimportant cases are being documented with no speculation of heavy court charges which one would typically pay for common prosecution cases. Subsequently, by recording such cases, bargains are haggled to get cash for the said bothered party to get the PILs. The basic clarification for such cases is that any weapon that can be utilized to safeguard oneself can likewise be utilized to assault somebody. Utilizing a similar rationale, one can bring down the Locus Standi prerequisites which license the inspired gatherings to record PILs which could address a public interest matter.

The Zhenhua Case: the emergence of civil environmental public interest litigation in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-128
Author(s):  
Wenjun Yan
Keyword(s):  
Air Pollution ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Pollution Control ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Air Pollution Control ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
First Time ◽  
Restoration Cost

Abstract In 2015, the All-China Environment Federation v Dezhou Jinghua Group Zhenhua Corporation Limited case was the first civil environmental public interest litigation (CEPIL) against air pollution in China. Constituting a milestone in the field of air pollution control in China, this case (i) confirms the eligibility of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) to file civil public interest litigations; (ii) discusses remedies for the ecological destruction caused by air pollution; (iii) assesses the ecological and environmental damage using the ‘virtual restoration cost’ method; and (iv) uses public apology as an innovative way for Zhenhua to assume liability. By applying and interpreting several important rules under the Environmental Protection Law of China (EPLC) for the first time, this case sets an example for future CEPILs against air pollution in China.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document