SC: Recoveries U/S 27 of Evidence Act Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction; 1988 Murder Acquittal Restored  ||  SC: Successive Impleadment Applications are Barred by Res Judicata under Different CPC Provisions  ||  Supreme Court Halts Coercive Measures in CJP Protest Cases, Directs Release of Minors  ||  Supreme Court: National Commission for Scheduled Castes Lacks Power to Pass Binding Orders  ||  Bombay HC: Alleged Illegal Arrest Alone Cannot Trigger Contempt Action Against Police  ||  Bombay HC Quashes Order against Taiwan National, Says Online Study Didn't Breach Visa Rules  ||  P&H High Court Issues Directions on LADC Scheme After Reviewing Lawyers' Objections  ||  Allahabad HC: Suspension of Sentence Plea Need Not Take Priority if Appeal is Ready  ||  Allahabad High Court: Surcharge Recovery From Pradhan Must Follow Panchayat Raj Act Procedure  ||  Allahabad HC Directs IB Probe into 4 Lucknow Lawyers, Raises Concern over Lawyer-Police Nexus    

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