Next-friend standing cannot challenge a conviction under Article 32 without a recognised legal disability.

A third party cannot invoke Article 32 as a next friend to challenge convicts' conviction and sentence unless the law recognises a real legal disability such as minority, insanity, or another cognisable incapacity. Mere friendship, obsession, or religious belief does not create standing or amount to a legal disability. The Code of Criminal Procedure provisions on disability are limited to recognised categories and do not extend to such a claim. A stranger's attempt to reopen a final conviction through purported next-friend representation would undermine finality and create consequences for others involved in the case.

---

---

Issues: Whether a third party claiming to act as a next friend can maintain a petition under Article 32 to challenge the conviction and sentence of convicts, and whether an asserted obsession or religious belief amounts to a legal disability enabling such representation.

Analysis: The right to challenge a conviction ordinarily belongs to the aggrieved party alone. A next friend may act only where the law recognises a real disability, such as minority or insanity, or another legally cognisable incapacity. A mere friendship with the convicts does not create standing, and an obsession based on belief or philosophy is not a legal disability within the meaning of the law. The cited provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 illustrate recognised categories of disability, but they do not extend to the present claim. Allowing a stranger to reopen a final conviction at the instance of a purported next friend would unsettle finality and risk serious consequences for others involved in the case.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable for want of locus standi, and the purported next friend could not invoke Article 32 on behalf of the convicts.

---