1. Review petition and miscellaneous applications filed by a third party seeking review of a judgment in a criminal appeal. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 853
1996(4) Supreme 166
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N. Ray and B.C. Hansaria, JJ.
Satvir Singh -Appellant
versus
Baldeva & Ors. -Respondents
Review Petition No. 884 of 1996
in
Criminal Appeal No. 650 of 1995
(With Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 1979, 1978, 1980 & 1981 of 1996)
Decided on 24-4-1996
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
A third party has no locus-standi to challenge conviction & sentence awarded to certain convicts .
A third party has no locus-standi to challenge conviction & sentence awarded to certain convicts .
Subject
Review Petition - Maintainability
Act Referred
Headnote
Locus-standi-Petition for review of judgment passed in criminal appeal referred by convicted appellants-Petitioner can not have locus-standi to maintain review petition. (Para 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Third party contends competence to file a review petition based on precedents allowing third-party petitions for public causes. (Para 3 )
3. Third parties lack locus standi to challenge convictions and sentences, distinguishing public interest litigation from requests to review criminal convictions. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. A third party has no locus standi to maintain a review petition challenging the conviction and sentence awarded to convicts. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Review petition and miscellaneous applications dismissed. (Para 3 )
6. Does a third party have locus standi to challenge the conviction and sentence of convicts in a review petition?
No, a third party has no locus standi to challenge the conviction and sentence awarded to convicts, even on the averments of violation of their fundamental rights. (Para 2 )
7. Can a third party maintain a review petition by relying on precedents that allow third-party petitions for public causes?
No, petitions espousing a public cause, such as the independence of the judiciary, are on a different footing than petitions seeking review of judgments passed in criminal appeals. (Para 3 )
ORDER
This review petition and other miscellaneous applications in connection with the review petition have been filed out of time. It has been filed by Satbir Singh, the maternal grand-father of PW6 Satish, seeking for review of the judgment passed in Crl. Appeal No. 650 of 1995.
2. In our view, the review application is not maintainable. In Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India1, this Court has held that a third party has no locus standi to challenge the conviction and sentence awarded to certain convicts even on the averments of violation of their fundamental rights.
3. In State of Karnataka v. I.R. Dhananjaya2, it has been held that the review petition filed by the State seeking review of the conviction and sentence of one of the officers of the State was not maintainable. The petitioner in this review petition has relied on the decision of this Court in S.P. Gupta v. President of India3 and has contended that the third party like him is competent to file the present petition for review. Such contention, however, cannot be accepted. In S.P. Gupta s case, the petitioner was espousing the case of independence of judiciary. The present petitioner is not espousing such a cause, but praying for review of the judgment passed in an appeal preferred by the convicted appellants. The same stands entirely on different footing and, in our view, the petitioner has no locus-standi to maintain the instant review petition.
The review petition and the miscellaneous applications are therefore dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
*******
Paralllel Citations of other Journals :
Satvir Singh v. Baldeva & Ors., 1996(4) Supreme 166
00029
00030
