9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to conviction and sentence by a third party under Article 32 of the Constitution. Analysis: The petitioner, claiming to be the 'next friend' of the convicts, filed a petition questioning the legality of their conviction and sentence by the Designated Court, Pune, and confirmed by the Supreme Court. The central issue was whether a third party stranger has the 'locus standi' to challenge the conviction and sentence of the accused under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, citing relevant legal provisions and precedents, concluded that such a petition by a third party is not maintainable. The Court emphasized that only the convicted individuals have the right to challenge their convictions, not third parties. Allowing third parties to challenge convictions could lead to serious repercussions and undermine the rule of law. The petitioner argued that the convicts were under a legal disability due to their intense obsession, justifying the petitioner's role as their next friend. However, the Court held that the convicts' obsession did not constitute a legal disability recognized by the law. The Court emphasized that legal disabilities permitting a next friend to act on behalf of an aggrieved party typically involve minors, insane persons, or specific conditions outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court rejected the argument that a mere obsession based on religious belief could justify a third party initiating legal proceedings. The Court also rejected the petitioner's contention that the sentiments of the Sikh community should influence the decision, emphasizing that legal principles must prevail over emotional considerations. The Court noted that even in a previous case where the petitioner claimed to be the next friend of condemned prisoners, the petition was dismissed for lack of 'locus standi.' The Court concluded that the petitioner had no 'locus standi' to challenge the conviction and sentence of the convicts, and the petition was summarily rejected.
|
