Whether a third party can interfere in adjudication of a criminal matter which is primarily function of State?

Supreme Court: Deciding the question of law that whether a third party can interfere in the adjudication of a criminal matter which is primarily the function of the State, the three judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Hon'ble P. Sathasivam CJ., and Hon'ble Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi JJ., held that if the prayer of the third party is such that it has far reaching consequences that affect the larger public interest, rendering the effect on the criminal prosecution under question insignificant, then the right to participate in the criminal prosecution will be granted.
The petitioner had filed a PIL praying for an authoritative pronouncement on the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and its applicability to juveniles committing heinous crimes like rape; in the backdrop of the Delhi Gang Rape Case. The question that arose for consideration in this case was whether this claim of the petitioner is maintainable since it is an established principle of law that a third party has no right to participate in any criminal prosecution as it is the responsibility of the State. The Court held that the petitioners had only sought to interpret those provisions of law that seemed inconsistent with the current state of society and a threat to public safety and order and not prayed for being impleaded as a party to the criminal prosecution. Moreover, the Court also said that the impact which the acceptance or rejection of the petitioner's claims may have on the juvenile accused in the criminal prosecution under question, is only incidental and must less significant compared to the impact on the entire juvenile community. In other words, there is a larger public interest involved in the prayers of the petitioner. In such a scenario, the learned judges opined that the special leave petition is maintainable before the Supreme Court. Accordingly, an order to hear the special leave petition on merits was given. [Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Raju, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1953 of 2013; decided on August 22, 2013]

Print Page