Locus standi and finality of Constitution Bench rulings barred writ petitions filed for a non-party Judge's benefit.

A public-interest litigant could not maintain writ petitions seeking relief primarily for the benefit of a Judge facing removal proceedings when the Judge was not impleaded and had not sought the relief himself. The Court held that a directly affected person must ordinarily pursue such relief, and third-party petitions to confer that benefit were impermissible. It also held that a concluded Constitution Bench ruling could not be reopened through these petitions merely to reargue the same subject matter, absent compelling grounds for reconsideration. The petitions were therefore rejected at the threshold on maintainability and locus grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable for reliefs sought for the benefit of the Judge in the absence of impleadment of the Judge as a party; (ii) Whether the petitioners could seek reconsideration of the earlier Constitution Bench decision in the same subject matter.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable for reliefs sought for the benefit of the Judge in the absence of impleadment of the Judge as a party.

Analysis: The reliefs claimed were directly for the benefit of the Judge facing removal proceedings, and any adjudication on the merits would necessarily affect his rights and interests. A person primarily and directly affected must ordinarily seek such relief himself, unless a legally sufficient reason exists for another to do so on his behalf. In the circumstances, the petitions sought to foist relief on the concerned Judge without his participation, which was impermissible.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners could seek reconsideration of the earlier Constitution Bench decision in the same subject matter.

Analysis: Reconsideration of a concluded Constitution Bench ruling is not available merely because a later petitioner seeks to reagitate the same questions. The earlier decision bound the parties and could not be reopened through these writ petitions, especially when the person directly affected had chosen not to seek such reconsideration himself. The Court found no compelling public-good basis to disturb the settled position.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were not fit for adjudication on merits at the instance of these petitioners and were rejected at the threshold on preliminary grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A public-interest litigant cannot maintain a petition seeking relief primarily for the benefit of a directly affected person who is not before the Court, and a concluded Constitution Bench decision cannot be reopened at the instance of such a petitioner absent compelling grounds justifying reconsideration.

Concurring Opinion: K. Ramaswamy, J. differed on maintainability and locus, holding that a bona fide public-interest litigant could seek declaration of law. However, he agreed that the petitioners could not obtain relief on the merits and, in relation to W.P. No. 140 of 1992, concurred in dismissal.

---