Judicial review under APA §702
What is Standing?
Standing (or "locus standi") means the legal capacity to bring an action or appear in a court. In administrative law, it ensures that only persons who are sufficiently affected by a decision or rule of an administrative authority can challenge it.
The doctrine prevents courts from being flooded with cases by individuals who have no real interest or injury caused by the decision.
General Principles of Standing
Direct Injury or Interest: The person must be directly affected by the administrative action.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Sometimes, courts relax the rule to allow individuals to file cases on behalf of public interest.
Sufficient Interest: The person must show a sufficient interest in the matter, which is more than just a mere intellectual or academic interest.
Detailed Explanation Through Case Law
1. Locus Standi in Administrative Law: The Case of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) (US Supreme Court)
Facts: The Defenders of Wildlife challenged a rule related to endangered species protection.
Issue: Whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue.
Held: The Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to demonstrate a concrete, particularized injury.
Significance: Established the requirement for concrete injury, not just a generalized grievance, for standing in administrative matters.
Key Takeaway: Mere interest in a subject or a moral concern is not enough for standing; one must show actual or imminent harm.
2. Board of Education v. Allen (1968) (US Supreme Court)
Facts: Parents challenged a school policy affecting textbooks.
Issue: Whether they had standing to challenge administrative actions.
Held: The Court recognized that the parents had standing because they were directly affected by the decision, especially as taxpayers and concerned citizens.
Significance: Expanded the concept of standing to include those with a direct interest in administrative decisions affecting them.
3. R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. (1982) (UK)
Facts: The National Federation sought judicial review of a tax policy.
Issue: Whether a representative organization had standing.
Held: The House of Lords held that the Federation lacked standing because it was not directly affected.
Significance: Affirmed that standing requires a direct interest in the matter and that mere representative interest is insufficient.
4. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) (India)
Facts: In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India relaxed the traditional rules of standing.
Issue: Whether any citizen can file PIL (Public Interest Litigation) for enforcement of public rights.
Held: The court allowed any public-spirited individual to file a PIL in the interest of justice.
Significance: This case broadened the doctrine of standing in India, allowing citizens to approach courts even without direct injury, especially for protecting public interest.
5. R. v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd. (1995) (UK)
Facts: The World Development Movement challenged the government's decision to fund a dam project abroad.
Issue: Whether the NGO had standing to challenge government decisions.
Held: The Court granted standing because the applicant had a genuine interest in the issue, and the matter involved significant public interest.
Significance: Showed the flexibility of standing in public interest matters, even if the challenger is not directly affected.
6. Bennett v. Attorney-General (New Zealand, 1991)
Facts: Environmentalists challenged a government decision about land use.
Issue: Whether they had standing.
Held: The court held that the environmentalists had standing because of their genuine and real concern, despite no direct financial or personal interest.
Significance: Recognized that standing could be extended in matters of environmental protection and public interest.
Summary Table of Standing in Administrative Law:
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Principle | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) | USA | Concrete injury required | Mere interest insufficient |
| Board of Education v. Allen (1968) | USA | Direct interest of taxpayers/parents | Standing if directly affected |
| Ex parte National Federation (1982) | UK | Direct interest required | Representative organizations lack standing |
| S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) | India | Relaxed standing for PIL | Any public-spirited citizen can sue |
| Ex parte World Development Movement (1995) | UK | Public interest grants standing | NGOs with genuine interest allowed |
| Bennett v. Attorney-General (1991) | NZ | Environmental concerns justify standing | Genuine concern allows standing |
Conclusion:
The Doctrine of Standing ensures that courts hear cases only from those with a genuine stake in the issue. While traditionally strict, many jurisdictions have relaxed these rules in the context of public interest, especially in environmental matters or fundamental rights, allowing wider access to justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments