Third-party PIL cannot disrupt a criminal trial, challenge judicial posting, or compel tax appeals without proof of illegality.

Strangers to a criminal proceeding cannot use public interest litigation to interfere with the conduct of a trial, including the appointment of a prosecutor or cancellation of bail, where the trial has substantially progressed and no material shows prejudice or illegality. The administrative posting of a Special Judge made by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional control under Article 235 cannot be impeached collaterally without pleadings and proof of procedural infraction. A third party likewise cannot compel revenue authorities by mandamus to file appeals against Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders when the authority has already taken a reasoned decision not to appeal and no arbitrariness or mala fides is shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether strangers to a criminal proceeding could maintain public interest litigation to interfere with the conduct of the trial, including appointment of prosecutor and cancellation of bail; (ii) whether the appointment of the Special Judge by the High Court could be challenged in these collateral proceedings; (iii) whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing the revenue authorities to file appeals against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Issue (i): whether strangers to a criminal proceeding could maintain public interest litigation to interfere with the conduct of the trial, including appointment of prosecutor and cancellation of bail.

Analysis: The petitions were filed by persons with no direct legal interest in the criminal case. The material showed that the trial had substantially progressed, the earlier prosecutor had already completed the prosecution evidence and arguments, and there was no substantiated material to show that the change of prosecutor was engineered to prejudice the prosecution or assist the accused. Interference by third parties at that stage was held capable of disrupting the trial and affecting the rights of both prosecution and accused.

Conclusion: The prayer to intervene in the conduct of the criminal trial, including appointment of prosecutor and cancellation of bail, was not maintainable and was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the appointment of the Special Judge by the High Court could be challenged in these collateral proceedings.

Analysis: The appointment and posting of the Special Judge had been made by the Standing Committee of the High Court on the basis of service records. The Court held that the administrative posting of a Special Judge fell within the High Court's domain under Article 235 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of pleadings and proof of illegality or procedural infraction, the appointment could not be impeached collaterally in a writ petition filed by strangers to the criminal case.

Conclusion: The challenge to the appointment of the Special Judge was untenable and was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing the revenue authorities to file appeals against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The Court noted that the departmental authorities had considered the matter and decided not to prefer appeals after obtaining legal opinion. A third party cannot, in collateral proceedings, compel the statutory authority to invoke an appellate remedy, particularly when no material is shown to establish arbitrariness, mala fides, or procedural illegality in the decision not to appeal.

Conclusion: No mandamus could be issued directing the filing of appeals against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders, and the prayer was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were found to be without merit, and the attempt to use public interest litigation to interfere with a criminal prosecution and a concluded tax appellate decision was not permitted.

Ratio Decidendi: A stranger to the proceeding cannot invoke public interest jurisdiction to interfere with a criminal trial or compel a statutory authority to pursue an appeal, and administrative postings made by the High Court under its constitutional control cannot be challenged collaterally absent proof of illegality.

---