( 1 ) THE petitioner, Karamjeet Singh, who claims to be the next friend of the convicts Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha and Harjinder Singh alias Jinda by reason of his having participated along with them in Kar Seva for the restoration of Harminder Sahib, in Golden Temple, Amritsar, has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution questioning the legality and validity of their conviction and sentence by the Designated Court, Pune and the confirmation thereof by this Court by its judgment rendered on 15/07/1992, See: State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh, (1992) 3 SCC 700: (AIR 1992 SC 2100 ). Though it is stated in the petition that it is being filed on behalf of the aforesaid two convicts it is clarified in paragraph 4 thereof that the said convicts have given oral and written instructions that none of their relations should file any petition seeking justice or mercy for them. It is, therefore, clear that this petition is not filed on instructions given by the two convicts or at their behest. The petition is strongly opposed by the learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the respondent.

( 2 ) THE question which falls for determination in this petition is identical to the one which had arisen for consideration by this Court in the case of Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India, (1992) 5 JT (SC) 441, namely, whether a third party who is a total stranger to the prosecution culminating in the conviction of the accused, has any locus standi to challenge the conviction and sentence awarded to them, by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution? This Court after considering the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules came to the conclusion that such a petition by a third party stranger is not maintainable. In taking this view this Court relied on the observations in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Suppl SCC 87: (AIR 1982 SC 149); M. Krishna Swami v. Union of India, (1992) 5 JT (SC) 92 and in particular the observations in Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary, (1991) 3 SCC 756 to the following effect:"even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case of this nature registered against specified accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants. "on this line of reasoning, we in that case observed as under:"the two convicts could, if so minded, have raised the contention in the earlier proceedings but a third party, a total stranger to the trial commenced against the two convicts, cannot be permitted to question the correctness of the conviction recorded against them. If that were permitted any and every person could challenge convictions recorded day-in and day-out by courts even if the persons convicted do not desire to do so and are inclined to acquiesce in the decision. "we, therefore, took the view that neither the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 nor any other statute permitted a third party stranger to question the correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court after a regular trial.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had filed this petition as the next friend of the two convicts who were under a legal disability due to their intense obsession that the person who was responsible for desecrating the Harminder Sahib cannot be allowed to survive and has no right to live being guilty of such a high act of sacrilege against divinity. He submitted that the said obsession led the two convicts to believe that the perpetrator of the sacrilege against divinity was the Government of the day and justice could not be expected from it and hence they would themselves have to mete out the punishment to the said authorities responsible for the demolition of the Akaa