KARAMJEET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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 July 15, 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:

(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 Akaal Takht. He submitted that the two convicts were under such legal disability and hence the petitioner, as their next friend, was entitled to move this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. In support of the contention that the petitioner was the next friend of the two convicts reliance was placed at the hearing on a letter purported to have been written on March 30, 1992 by one of the convicts Harjinder Singh alias Jinda to Balwinder Singh wherein a reference was made to the petitioner. We assume that the petitioner is a friend of the two convicts and had brushed shoulders with them during Kar Seva at Harminder Sahib. Learned Counsel, therefore, invited our attention to the observations in paragraph 7 of the judgment in Simranjit Singh Mann's case (1992 (5) JT (SC) 44 1), wherein we observed: