| Citation | (2014) 9 SCC 737 |
| Date of Judgement | 2nd September 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Criminal Writ Petition – No 77 of 2014 |
| Appellant | Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq |
| Respondent | The Registrar of Supreme Court of India & Ors. |
| Bench | Chief Justice, Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Chelameswar, A.K. Sikri, Rohinton Fali Nariman, R M Lodha |
| Referred | Article 21, 136, Article 137 of COI, and Section 368,354,302 of CrPC |
FACTS OF THE CASE
-An incident of firing took place inside Lal Quila, commonly known as the Red Fort, on the evening of December 22, 2000. The region of Lal Quila where the Indian Army’s 7th Rajputana Rifles regiment was stationed had been infiltrated by intruders due to which three army jawans.
-The intruders indiscriminately used AK-56 rifles during the incident. It was determined that these army jawans’ deaths were homicidal. The intruders fled the situation by climbing over Lal Quila’s backside boundary wall and heading toward the Ring Road side after the army’s rapid response team fired back at them.
-Calls were placed to the phones of two BBC correspondents, one based in Srinagar and the other in the BBC office in Delhi, as soon as the intruders made their getaway. The caller accused the Lashkar-e-Toiba, an outlawed militant group that has committed terrorist actions in India as the cause of the shooting incident.
-Numerous firearms and ammunition were found after the incident occurred. On the Ring Road behind Lal Quila, close to Vijay Ghat, an AK-56 rifle was discovered. At the scene of the incident, cartridge cases were also discovered.
-A piece of paper with the mobile number was discovered close to Lal Quila’s back side boundary wall. The BBC correspondents received calls from the same mobile number claiming to be the cause of the tragedy. The phone number directed the police to Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq’s apartment at Flat No. 308-A in Ghazipur, New Delhi.
-Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq was arrested on suspicion of taking part in the shooting incident. A pistol and live ammunition were discovered in his possession after his detention, and it was discovered that he lacked a license for these firearms. He also knew where the AK-56 rifle was discovered at Vijay Ghat.
-Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq revealed the locations of additional firearms and ammunition while he was being held by the police. In Okhla, three hand grenades were found underneath his computer center, while an AK-56 rifle and ammunition were found behind Lal Quila.
-Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq had assumed a false identity and presented himself as a shawl trader who lived in Jammu. In order to hide his genuine identity, he had procured falsified documents, such as a ration card and a learner’s permit. Additionally, he had made sizable deposits into numerous accounts without providing a clear justification for their origin.
-The Lal Quila incident was the outcome of a carefully thought-out conspiracy between Mohd. Arif and other terrorists. It was perceived as a war crime against the Indian government, hence, the accused was found guilty of crimes covered by Sections 186/353/120 of the IPC read with Section 302 of the IPC, Sections 468/471/474 of the IPC, and Section 420 read with Section 120 B of the IPC.
-The trial court sentenced the accused to death for his conviction under Sections 121 and 320 read with Section 120 B of the IPC, and the High Court upheld this decision on appeal.
-The Constitutional Bench further resolved a group petition that was brought before the Honourable Supreme Court
ISSUE
-Whether a bench of at least three, if not five Supreme Court judges should consider cases in which the death penalty has been imposed?
-In light of the fact that those on death row are denied an oral hearing, whether the Order XL Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 should be deemed unconstitutional?
-Should reviewing the petitions in cases involving death sentences only be heard in open court and by circulation?
ARGUMENTS
The Learned Counsel of the petitioner submitted that cases in which the death penalty has been awarded fall under a separate category. In any case, involving a death sentence, Section 134 of the Constitution grants a right of automatic appeal to the Supreme Court. Additionally, it was stated that Section 354(3) of the CrPC. recognizes the need for specific justifications in death penalty cases and that case laws that were cited to demonstrate that only the rarest of rare instances would allow for its granting. The Supreme Court gives death sentences precedence in hearings over other cases.
The counsel continued by saying that, as noted in numerous articles and by Bhagwati J., the imposition of the death penalty at the moment is subject to the whims of the judiciary.
The 187th Law Commission Report 2003 proposed that all death cases be heard by at least five Supreme Court judges. The Court Martials involving death penalties must be heard by at least five senior commanders, per Army, Air Force, and Navy regulations. An alternate argument was advanced that, even though death penalty cases are to be handled by benches of three honorable judges, two extra judges can be appointed at the review stage so that the 5 learned judges can decide the review stage in death penalty cases. Additionally, it was contended that since the petitioner had already served more than 13 years in prison, he could not now be sentenced to death.
In reference to Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Shri Ranjit Kumar, the counsel of the respondents, stated that no review is often offered in all criminal instances, but he stopped short of addressing the arguments. It was also argued that the Supreme Court is now experiencing extreme stress due to its workload and that review petitions that result in a rehearing of the same list cannot be granted in order to prevent further harm to an already highly strained legal system.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court Rules’ Order XL Rule 3 change, which eliminated open court oral hearings of review petitions, was affirmed by the court. Because it was rendered by a coordinate bench and is also a ruling of the Constitution Bench, it has legal force on this bench. Although the constitutional bench acknowledged the value of an oral hearing in response to the argument, it took the general position that the court only makes very minor decisions when it comes to reviewing applications, and the amended rule adequately satisfies the requirements of the audi alterm partem principle. The court made it clear that considering a review petition by “circulation” would just mean that there would be no court hearing, but there would still be discussion at the judicial conference and the judges would gather, deliberate, and come to a consensus. It has been correctly stressed that not every judicial proceeding needs to be broadcast on the national network and that no judgment needs to be mentioned in support of this fundamental notion. The right to be heard is crucial, but being heard simply means having a fair chance to argue one’s case before a panel of impartial judges who will then fairly assess it. Depending on the circumstances, a presentation may be made orally or in writing.
When oral presentation is not absolutely necessary, its omission is not offensive. However, when oral presentation is not absolutely necessary, its exclusion is unfair and hence arbitrary. The Court further pointed out that in many other jurisdictions, public hearings were not held in these situations. In addition, the Court recognized the reason for implementing this regulation in light of increasing dockets and the careless way that review petitions were filed in the majority of cases. The Article 137 review authority is similarly broad in all procedures. The regulation merely channels the power reservoir’s flow. The source cannot be stopped by the stream. Additionally, the dynamics of interpretation depend on the context’s requirements and the test’s lexical capacity. The record’s interpretation in this case depends on the context’s requirements and the test’s lexical restrictions. The intent is clear, the wording is flexible, and an expansive interpretation of vital power is only natural. The substantive power, which is broad for both criminal and civil procedures, is drawn from Article 137.
Thus, it is evident from reading the aforementioned judgment that the practice of adjudicating review petitions by “circulation” and without holding an open courtroom oral hearing has previously been upheld.
Even the partially preserved right to property was totally eliminated by the Constitution’s 44th Amendment Act, and the Supreme Court ruled in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 2 SCR 621 that the legal process must be just, fair, and reasonable. In the A K Gopalan case, a six-judge Supreme Court panel interpreted Article 21 both grammatically and textually. According to Kania J., the word “liberty” is used more broadly in the US Constitution than it is in the Indian Constitution, which only refers to personal freedom. The US Constitution also grants property the same protection as personal property, although in India this right is covered by Article.
The scene was now set for the Maneka Gandhi ruling. Following the delivery of several judgments, it was determined that Article 21 should be read alongside other fundamental rights. As a result, not only must the legal process be just, fair, and reasonable, but the law itself must also be reasonable because Articles 14 and 19 must now be read into Article 21.
The law established in this judgment, the right to a limited oral hearing in review petitions where a death sentence is delivered, has been made extremely explicit by the Court and will only apply to review petitions that are currently ongoing and petitions of this type that are filed in the future. If a review petition has previously been denied but the death sentence has not yet been carried out, it will still apply. If the review petition is dismissed, the petitioners may request for its reopening, however, it would not be appropriate to reconsider such proceedings.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by G Parinitha of St. Joseph’s College of Law, Intern at Legal Vidhya.
0 Comments