Locus standi in juvenile justice interpretation upheld where petition sought statutory clarification affecting juveniles generally.

Third-party participation in criminal proceedings is ordinarily limited because prosecution is primarily a State function, but a challenge seeking an authoritative interpretation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was not confined to the individual juvenile's case. The Court noted that the requested ruling would affect juveniles generally and was directed at the scope and effect of the statute itself, rather than impleadment in the inquiry or trial. On that basis, the proceeding was treated as maintainable and not barred at the threshold for want of locus standi.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners lacked locus standi to seek an authoritative interpretation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 so as to challenge the maintainability of the proceeding at the threshold.

Analysis: The question was whether strangers to the criminal case could seek judicial clarification on the scope and effect of the juvenile justice law. The Court noted the general principle that criminal prosecution is primarily the function of the State and that third-party participation is ordinarily not recognised. It also observed, however, that the petitioners were not seeking impleadment in the inquiry or trial against the juvenile, but were asking for an authoritative ruling on statutory provisions whose effect would extend beyond the individual case. The relief sought was thus not confined to the first respondent alone and would affect juveniles generally. On that basis, the Court held that the challenge could not be rejected for want of locus.

Conclusion: The petition was held to be maintainable and not defeated by absence of locus standi.

---