Judgment No. CCZ 12/2015 22 Const. Application No. 79/14 maintain an action for judicial redress is relaxed and a broad rule is evolved which gives standing to any member of the public who is not a mere busy–body or a meddlesome interloper but who has sufficient interest in the proceedings. There can be no doubt that the risk of legal action against the State or a public authority by any citizen will induce the State or such public authority to act with greater responsibility and care thereby improving the administration of justice.” It is not necessary for a person challenging the constitutional validity of legislation to vindicate public interest on the ground that the legislation has infringed or infringes a fundamental human right, to give particulars of a person or persons who suffered legal injury as a result of the alleged unconstitutionality of the legislation. Section 85(1)(d) of the Constitution requires the person to allege that a fundamental human right enshrined in Chapter 4 has been, is being or is likely to be infringed. He or she is not required to give particulars of a right holder. The reason is that constitutional invalidity of existing legislation takes place immediately the constitutional provision with which it is inconsistent comes into force. Constitutional invalidity of legislation enacted after the constitutional provision has come into effect occurs immediately the legislation is enacted. Constitutional invalidity of legislation does not depend, in such circumstances, on when a fundamental human right is infringed. Fundamental human rights and freedoms are guaranteed so that beyond the permissible limitations they are not infringed. Legislation which is inconsistent with a constitutional provision enshrining a fundamental human right of freedom becomes invalid before application. Application of the legislation is in the circumstances an unnecessary factor in the determination of its constitutional validity.