Locus standi — literally "place to stand" — is the legal principle that determines who has the right to bring a case before a court. In traditional common-law practice, only a party with a direct and personal stake in the matter could seek judicial relief. Indian jurisprudence has substantially expanded this doctrine, particularly in the context of writ jurisdiction and public interest litigation (PIL).
Classical locus standi: the petitioner must have suffered, or be under imminent threat of suffering, a legal wrong. Mere academic or general interest in the subject was insufficient. This doctrine remains the default in most civil disputes — a stranger cannot sue over a contract to which they are not party.
Expanded locus standi in PIL: beginning with cases like *S.P. Gupta v. Union of India* (1981), the Supreme Court liberalized standing in matters of public interest. A public-spirited person or organization may move the court on behalf of those who cannot move it themselves due to poverty, illiteracy, or other disability. Abuse of this relaxed standing (frivolous PILs) has led to stricter gatekeeping in recent years — courts impose costs on PIL petitioners with questionable locus.
In writ petitions under Article 226 and Article 32, locus is usually a threshold question. The respondent's counsel may challenge standing at admission; the court's willingness to entertain a petition without direct personal stake varies by matter and by bench.
For civil suits, locus remains relatively strict — jurisdictional questions often turn on whether the plaintiff has the necessary interest.