Locus Standi in Access to Justice

If persons who participated in a selection process but who could not make it to the final list of selected candidates on account of alleged corrupt practices adopted by those in power are not ‘victims’, we do not know who else could be a ‘victim’.

Section 2(wa) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Hon’ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam, (1980) 3 SCC 141 said in his inimitable style, “… bogey of busybodies blackmailing adversaries through frivolous invocation of Article 136 is chimerical. ‘Access to Justice’ to every bona fide seeker is a democratic dimension of remedial jurisprudence even as public interest litigation, class action, pro bono proceedings, etc. We cannot dwell in the home of processual obsolescence when our Constitution highlights social justice as a goal.”

Therefore, objection about locus standi is without any merit. In any case, P. Dharamraj is a ‘victim’, as he could not get selected on account of alleged corrupt practices.

Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian, P. Dharamraj v. Shanmugam, [Criminal Appeal No. 1514 of 2022].