The petitioner, a professor of political science who had done substantial research and deeply interested in ensuring proper implementation of the constitutional provi. sions, challenged the practice followed by the State of Bihar in re-promulgating a number of Ordinances without getting the approval of the legislature. The Court held that the petitioner as a member of public has ‘sufficient interest to maintain a petition under Article 32-This relates to the case of?

Dr. D.C Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579. The rule of locus standi have been relaxed and a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of Public Interest Litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration……Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests- (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others, and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive and the legislature.