1. Locus Standi

It is worth noting that during the proceedings of JR, the question of whom to be considered the “applicant” is decided in light of LS. Furthermore, in the light of the “Section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981”, which was initially termed as the “Supreme Court Act 1981”, it is stated that the HC has the authority to grant the permission to commence JR proceedings only for the people possessing a significant interest in the application’s context. Even though it is evident that the “standing” is established at the moment when we are concerned with the authorization, it has shown that it has a great impact when the “substantive hearing” is going on. One can never turn down the fact that the “Locus Standi” framework has always been highly crucial in making sure that the public entities are safeguarded from unjustified expensive issues while trying to keep the court’s working efficient. Even though it has sometimes been called contentious yet its benefits are too much. In the procedure of considering the logic behind standing requirements.

2. We can define the term Judicial Review as an evaluation done to review a judgment made by the local body. While explaining the upcoming steps, it has been stated by “Sedley J.” that once the initial step is done, the issue is taken to the courts in order to make sure that the claim is legal and valid. Furthermore, it is made sure that there exists no illegal action being performed by the local bodies and the body also hasn’t performed any sort of misuse of the powers given to them by the law. Furthermore, the “filtration mechanism” has a great significance as it serves to prevent “procedural misuse”, effectively deterring people lacking legitimate interest from transforming the court into an indiscriminate forum for litigation. Moreover, it has asserted by “Cane” that the requirement of maintaining a judicious equilibrium among the prohibition of meritless and harassing claims and the facilitation of meaningful avenues for legal issues. Therefore, leading towards smoothing the way local authorities work. Still, the “standing” principles in the framework of law have been severely harsh.

3. Furthermore, in order to make sure that the rule of law is preserved there is a need for a highly proficient method during issues of “public interest”. Initially, the responsibility to prove that the person filing the complaint has been negatively affected by the decision which resulted due to the actions of an executive entity relied upon the shoulders of the applicant. This was changed after the “1978 Act”. It has postulated that while trying to get the JR, an individual is supposed to have “sufficient interest” within the claim made by him/her as per the “order 53 rule 3(7) which is now known as the sec 31(3) of SCA 1981”. The ways for determining the above mentioned “sufficient interest” have analyzed

by the HL during the case “NFSSB”. It was finally decided by the HL that there has to be 2 levels when concerned with “Locus Standi”. Initially, it has been stated by “Lord Scarman” that the role played by the court includes the screening of litigious interlopers, thereby turning down applications only upon substantiation of the plaintiff's deficiency in a substantive interest pertaining to the complaint's subject matter. It has also been highlighted during “ex parte Dixon”. Secondly, it is to be noted that in the ultimate hearing phase, regardless of the earlier permission being granted, the court has the right to reevaluate the merits of the case and afterwards, upon deliberation, either turn down the claimant due to lack of “sufficient interest” or permit the case to be proceeded.

It has also been questioned by various lords that the extent of “uniform test” should be restricted to the “prerogative orders” or should it be expanded to make some room to fit in every remedy. Furthermore, it has been stated clearly by all the Lords irrespective of the “remedy sought”, the test that is conducted for “standing” shall be the same. Nevertheless, it has been affirmed by Gouriet that standing would be conferred during the process of granting the leave and the last hearing. Moreover, regarding the case “NFSSB”, it has been stated by “Professor Cane” that this case has resulted in modifying the “standing” and has modified the procedure by making different variants of standing. As per this, “standing” has been divided into 2 different variants. The initial variant involves a single person who has brought an appeal after he has done providing the evidence that he satisfies the requirement for “sufficient interest”. On the other hand, the other variant takes place when a pressure group while representing their member, who has been affected in a negative manner due to the decision made by local authority, decides to bring up an appeal. When concerned with “Individual Standing”, it has been stated by “Schmidt” that the courts have uniformly acknowledged the application of a test assessing the sufficiency of interest in cases where personal interests are implicated. Nevertheless, after the decision being made by the HL, the courts have demonstrated increased attention towards such claims. However, there do exist cases concerned with “personal interest” that are simpler in nature like the case “ex parte Whitehouse”. In this case, it was established by the court that since she possessed a license for Television therefore the court permitted the applicant to initiate “Locus Standi”.

4. A queer incident took place during the case “ex parte Smedley”, it happened that the applicant was considered entitled for “standing” just because he had been paying the taxes. Yet, it is to be noted that while applying the “fusion methodology” the courts should take a lenient stance. It has been categorically stated by Lord Diplock that it would lead to a significant deficiency if a person were precluded from pursuing judicial review of an unconstitutional action on the basis of standing. Due to the fact that the “individual standing” is comparatively less complicated and easier, therefore it is considered a lenient perspective. This fact was brought up during the case “ex parte Blackburn”. There had been an expansion in this lenient perspective during the case of “Ress Mogg”. This case was mainly focused on questioning the lawfulness of “Judicial Review”. It is to be noted that the lenient perspective advocates for dealing with the

instances of environmental and human rights infringements by underlining the paramountcy of safeguarding people rights. On the other hand, “Rose Theatre” opted for a more restrictive perspective. Furthermore, a number of complexities have appeared whenever the applicants sought to represent the interests of third parties. Moreover, it should be noted that “representative standing” has now been divided into three different sections by “Peter Cane”. The first section is the “Surrogate Representative Standing” as per which during scenarios where a “nominal claimant” endeavors to advocate for the benefits of the original party to the action, owing to the original claimant's inability to plead their own case due to personal incapacity. Furthermore, during the case “ex parte Child poverty”, it has been stated by “Professor Craig” that the pressure groups are also at a position to act for others’ benefits. As a result, the courts seemed to favor this stance during the case of “ex parte Bateman”.

5. It is to be noted that while laying out the decision during the well known case “ex parte Bland and the Royal College of Nursing”, an explanation of the term “associational standing” was given. It was stated this term means the cases where a class or a group has been awarded “Locus Standi” due to the fact that the concerned applicant was affiliated with that class or group and even his interest while being a single person has also been breached. At last, it should be noted that "public interest" standing is related to matters involving the welfare of the public, which is construed widely, thus enabling “locus standi” to be conferred upon a group bringing forth the claim, in case the requirement of sufficient interest is satisfied. It is noteworthy, as discussed in ECHR, that a newer basis for the judicial review, specifically, the illegality of a public authority's actions deemed incompatible with the rights has been introduced by section 6 of the “HRA 1998”.

Furthermore, as far as we are concerned with section 7 ‘only victims have standing’. In light of the Human Rights Act 1998 sections, an applicant is allowed to file a claim for judicial review in infringement of European Convention on Human Rights if he/she had been impacted or have suffered a loss due to an executive body's order. However, the outlook of courts on ‘Red Light’, ‘Green Light’, and ‘Amber Light’ theories along with the current ‘Locus Standi’ have been rounded by Harlow and Rowlings. In general, it is believed that the ‘Extra Vires rule’ is more of way to check the lawfulness of the decisions made by the government instead of an appeal on the merits of such decisions. A dispute exists that should a review be solely related with safeguarding the public bodies from a large number of insufficient and baseless legal hurdles in order to ensure that the public administration works smoothly (Green Light Theory), or the review be solely related with assuring the preservation of the basic human rights by efficacious hurdles towards the decisions made by the public bodies (Red Light Theory).

[page-empty]