https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305982 The Supreme Court held that a third party, claiming to be the 'next friend' of convicts, lacked standing to challenge their conviction and sentence under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that only the convicted individuals themselves have the right to challenge their convictions, not third parties. The argument that the convicts' obsession constituted a legal disability justifying the petitioner's role was rejected, with the Court stating that legal disabilities for next friends typically involve minors, insane persons, or specific conditions under the Criminal Procedure Code. The petition was summarily rejected, emphasizing the importance of legal principles over emotional considerations. en-us Thu, 08 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Jan 2023 14:19:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305982 The Supreme Court held that a third party, claiming to be the 'next friend' of convicts, lacked standing to challenge their conviction and sentence under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that only the convicted individuals themselves have the right to challenge their convictions, not third parties. The argument that the convicts' obsession constituted a legal disability justifying the petitioner's role was rejected, with the Court stating that legal disabilities for next friends typically involve minors, insane persons, or specific conditions under the Criminal Procedure Code. The petition was summarily rejected, emphasizing the importance of legal principles over emotional considerations. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305982