Definition
A person whose legal right has been directly and adversely affected by an act, order, or decision — and who therefore has locus standi to seek legal redress.
An 'aggrieved person' is one who has suffered a legal wrong or injury — whose legal rights, interests, or status have been directly and adversely affected by the conduct complained of. The test for aggrievement is not merely subjective dissatisfaction — it requires a direct, tangible legal impact. In civil proceedings (Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC), only a person 'aggrieved' by a decree or order can seek review. In criminal proceedings, victims and complainants are 'aggrieved persons' who have specific rights. The concept overlaps with 'locus standi' — to have locus standi, a person typically must show they are aggrieved. Under PIL, this requirement is relaxed for public interest matters.
Statutory Definition
Section 2(a), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005 (specific statutory definition): 'aggrieved person means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.' This is one of the few statutory definitions — most uses of 'aggrieved person' in Indian law rely on judicial interpretation. For court review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC: 'any person aggrieved by a decree or order' — judicially interpreted as requiring direct legal interest.
Etymology & Origin
From Old French 'agrever' (to aggravate, to burden) from Latin 'aggravare' (to make heavier, to oppress). A person 'aggrieved' is one who has been 'burdened' or 'oppressed' — whose position has been made worse by the act complained of.
Full Legal Analysis
Aggrieved Person: Direct Legal Injury as the Threshold
The concept of an 'aggrieved person' is the traditional gatekeeper to civil justice — only someone whose legal position has been directly worsened can seek redress. Mere displeasure, moral objection, or concern for others is not sufficient for classical aggrievement. But the breadth of what constitutes 'aggrievement' has expanded significantly through judicial interpretation — particularly in constitutional law.
Tests for Aggrievement
Courts have developed a three-part test for whether a person is 'aggrieved': (a) Direct impact: The person's legal rights, interests, or status must be directly affected — not merely indirectly or consequentially. (b) Legal right or interest: The impact must be on a legally recognised right or interest — not merely moral, sentimental, or economic without a legal basis. (c) Adverse effect: The impact must be unfavourable — the person's position must be worsened by the act complained of. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar AIR 1976 SC 578, the Supreme Court held that aggrievement requires 'a right in the party to complain of the act or omission of the other party.'
Criminal Proceedings: The Victim as Aggrieved Person
In criminal proceedings, the victim is the primary 'aggrieved person.' The BNSS 2023 specifically recognises victims' rights (Section 2(1)(y) — definition of victim) and grants victims specific procedural rights that were previously unavailable: right to be heard at bail hearings, right to their own advocate in trial, and right to appeal in certain cases. These rights flow from the victim's status as the person 'aggrieved' by the offence — the person whose legal right to personal safety, property, or dignity has been directly violated.
“An aggrieved person is not merely someone who is unhappy — they are someone the law has specifically wronged. The aggrievement must be legal, not merely personal. But when the law has truly wronged a person, the door to justice is open: they are the aggrieved, and the courts are there for them.”
