行政訴訟法第41條之訴訟參加類型，在我國目前的行政法院實務中，幾乎千篇一律地僅用於以強制訴訟參加之方式，來補正積極固有必要共同訴訟中，全體原告未共同起訴，以致於欠缺原告適格的情形。雖然，實務上這種普遍的作法，從行政訴訟法第41條的立法沿革來看，完全符合立法者當初設計此一條文的用意，不過如此的規範意旨，乃至於相應於此的實務見解，其實有待商榷。因為在一方面，積極固有必要共同訴訟，在行政訴訟的領域中，依據正確的理解，應屬相當罕見，絕非如我國目前實務般，錯誤地廣泛運用；從而立法者有無特別設計行政訴訟法第41條，專門用來解決所謂積極固有必要共同訴訟之原告適格問題的必要，非無可疑。更何況在另一方面，行政訴訟法第41條，不問訴外人之不起訴有無正當理由，直接以命其參加訴訟之方法，強制成為訴訟當事人，從憲法第16條同時保障人民有消極不訴訟之自由的角度觀察，也大有違憲之嫌。因此，這一條爭議的行政訴訟法之規定，既嫌多餘，又侵犯人民的訴訟權，終久之計，似宜刪除。

The Taiwanese administrative courts, in applying the device of ordering an interested person to intervene as provided in Article 41 of Administrative Litigation Act, almost universally used this device as a mechanism to compel the interested person to join as a co-plaintiff for the purpose of remedying the procedural deficiency that indispensable parties did not jointly initiate the pending litigation. This paper argues that while such application may be consistent with the legislative purpose from the perspective of legislative history, this designated purpose itself and the application derived from such purpose raise serious concerns. To begin with, the occurrence of cases calling for indispensable plaintiffs is rare, if correctly defined, in the administrative litigation regime. Therefore, as long as the courts correct their current practices of erroneously requiring indispensable plaintiffs in a wide variety of cases, it is questionable whether the device provided in Article 41 is needed at all. Moreover, by ordering an interested person to join as an involuntary plaintiff without due regard to whether such person has a legitimate reason to refuse to do so, the current practice arguably violates the interested person's constitutional right of free from being compelled to litigate under Article 16 of Taiwanese Constitution. This paper proposes that the best course of action to take is to eliminate the device provided in Article 41 of Administrative Litigation Act altogether.