Judgment No. CCZ 12/2015 20 Const. Application No. 79/14 In a minority judgment which has received approval in subsequent decisions of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, O’REGAN J in Ferreira v Levin supra in considering the interpretation and application of s 7(4()(b)(v) of the Interim Constitution of South Africa, worded in terms identical to s 85(1)(d) of the Constitution, said in para. [234]: “This Court will be circumspect in affording applicants standing by way of s 7(4)(b)(v) and will require an applicant to show that he or she is genuinely acting in the public interest. Factors relevant to determining whether a person is genuinely acting in the public interest will include considerations such as: whether there is another reasonable and effective manner in which the challenge can be brought; the nature of the relief sought and the extent to which it is of general and prospective application; and the range of persons or groups who may be directly or indirectly affected by any order made by the court and the opportunity that those persons or groups have had to present evidence and argument to the court. These factors will need to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case.” In Lawyers for Human Rights & Anor v Minister of Home Affairs & Anor 2004(4) SA 125(CC) YACOOB J in para [18] said: “The issue is always whether a person or organisation acts genuinely in the public interest. A distinction must however be made between the subjective position of the person or organisation claiming to act in the public interest on the one hand, and whether it is objectively speaking in the public interest for the particular proceedings to be brought. It is ordinarily not in the public interest for proceedings to be brought in the abstract. But this is not an invariable principle. There may be circumstances in which it will be in the public interest to bring proceedings even if there is no live case. The factors set out by O’REGAN J (Ferreira v Levin) help to determine the question. The list of relevant factors is not closed. I would add that the degree of vulnerability of the people affected; the nature of the right said to be infringed, as well as the consequences of the infringement of the right are also important considerations in the analysis.” In SP Gupta v The Union of India & Ors (1982) 2SCR 365 BHAGWATI J (as he then was) writing for the full bench of the Supreme Court of India, analysed in great detail the origin and rationale behind public interest standing adopted in many democratic legal systems. He concluded that fundamental to public interest standing provisions is the modern