Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

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