Supreme Court Issues Directions to Speed Up MACT Claims Amid Six-Year Average Pendency  ||  Supreme Court: Sex Selection Practices Continues Due to Preference For Male Children  ||  Supreme Court: Injury From a Fallen Tree is Not a Motor Accident for MACT Claims  ||  Madras HC: Recent Tamil Nadu Elections Reflect Voting Beyond Caste and Community Considerations  ||  Supreme Court: Children Should Not Undergo Psychological Tests in Custody Cases Unless Necessary  ||  Jharkhand HC: Lokayukta Cannot Delegate Core Adjudicatory Powers Even in Case Against Brother  ||  Ker HC: Complainant Can Invoke Presumptions After Proving Transaction, Cheque Execution Convincingly  ||  Supreme Court Cancels SARFAESI Auction Sale After 16 Years Due to a 5-Day Payment Delay  ||  Jhar HC Orders 2-Month Probe Deadline, DGP Monitoring to Overhaul Sexual Violence Response in State  ||  Delhi HC: Social Media Cannot Undermine Judiciary; Intermediaries Must Act Without Court Orders    

Amanullah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (12 Apr 2016)

Courts should be liberal in allowing third-party locus standi

MANU/SC/0403/2016

Criminal

Courts should be “liberal in allowing any third party” with a bona fide connection with the matter so long as it ‘advance[s] substantial justice’, the Supreme Court urged. However, such authority was to be with exercised with courts taking due care, it cautioned, to ensure that persons with personal grievances were not allowed to abuse the legal system, nor those who were unconnected with the matter. Rather than enumerate a list of persons who have locus standi, the court tendered that who all would have locus to maintain an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution would depend on the facts of each case.

The Court had heard the appeal against an order of the High Court quashing the cognisance order of the magistrate against a charge of murder. It concluded that the High Court’s decision was in error, on an appraisal of material placed before it. Witness testimony and evidence collected by the investigating officer was correctly considered by the CJM before taking cognisance.

Relevant : Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor MANU/SC/0053/2013 P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunanchalam MANU/SC/0083/1980 Section 482 CrPC Act

Tags : LOCUS STANDI   COGNIZANCE   THIRD PARTY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved