TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies 'locus standi' in criminal cases, limits third-party interventions.</h1> <h3>Simranjit Singh Mann Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court held that a third-party petitioner lacked 'locus standi' to challenge the conviction and sentence of two accused individuals in a case ... - Issues involved:Whether a third-party petitioner has 'locus standi' to challenge a conviction and sentence awarded to the convicts under Article 32 of the Constitution.Summary:The judgment pertains to a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by a third-party petitioner challenging the conviction and sentence of two accused individuals in a case involving the assassination of General Vaidya. The Designated Court convicted two accused individuals for the murder of General Vaidya and causing injury to his wife, sentencing them to death and rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner, a political leader, alleged violations of Articles 22, 21, and 14 of the Constitution, questioning the jurisdiction of the Designated Court and the Supreme Court in confirming the death sentence. The petitioner contended that the case should have been decided by the High Court of Maharashtra and raised concerns about the constitutional validity of the TADA Act. However, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner, being a third-party stranger with no direct personal stake in the case, lacked 'locus standi' to challenge the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court after a regular trial. The Court emphasized that only the aggrieved party affected by an order has the right to seek redress, and allowing third-party challenges could lead to unwarranted interference in judicial decisions. Citing precedents, the Court rejected the petition, stating that the petitioner had no standing to invoke the Court's jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.This judgment clarifies the limitations on third-party interventions in criminal proceedings and underscores the principle that only the aggrieved party directly affected by a decision has the right to challenge it.
TaxTMI 
