Court case1981 Supp SCC 87

A Law Minister's circular of March 1981 asked additional judges and persons recommended for judgeship to consent to posting outside their home State. Several additional judges were not continued, and judges were transferred without their consent. Advocates practising in different High Courts filed writ petitions challenging the circular, the non-extension of additional judges and the transfers. The Union questioned their standing: they were not themselves affected.

Bhagwati J laid down the modern rule of standing: where a legal wrong is caused to a person or a determinate class who, by reason of poverty, helplessness, disability or social or economic disadvantage, cannot approach the court, any member of the public acting bona fide may move the court, even by a letter, for relief. The lawyers had standing. On the merits, the majority held that "consultation" under Articles 124(2) and 217 means full and effective consultation but not concurrence; the executive had primacy. The circular was held not unconstitutional, though the non-continuance of one additional judge was criticised.