Supreme Court Seeks Delhi Government's Response on LeT Terrorist's Final Legal Plea
The Supreme Court of India has taken a significant step in a long-standing terrorism case by issuing a formal notice to the Delhi government. This notice demands a reply to a curative petition submitted by Mohammed Arif, also known as Ashfaq, a convicted terrorist affiliated with the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT). Arif received the death penalty for his involvement in the devastating December 12, 2000, attack on the Red Fort, an assault that resulted in the tragic deaths of three jawans from the Rajputana Rifles.
Bench Composition and Legal Context
A distinguished bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant alongside Justices Vikram Nath and J K Maheshwari, presided over the matter. The notice specifically addresses Arif's challenge against a Supreme Court order dated November 3, 2022, which had previously dismissed his review petition. In that dismissal, the court emphasized that "the fact that there was a direct attack on the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India, completely outweigh the factors which may even remotely be brought into consideration as mitigating circumstances on record."
It is crucial to understand that a curative petition represents the ultimate legal avenue available to a litigant. This mechanism allows for contesting a verdict that has already been affirmed twice by the Supreme Court itself, first through the dismissal of an appeal and subsequently via the rejection of a review petition.
Chronology of Legal Proceedings
The legal journey in this case spans over two decades. Mohammed Arif was initially sentenced to death on October 31, 2005. This sentence was upheld by the Delhi High Court in September 2007 and later confirmed by the Supreme Court in August 2011. Following these confirmations, Arif filed a review petition, which was rejected by a two-judge bench. Undeterred, he then submitted a curative petition challenging this rejection, which the Supreme Court also dismissed.
Subsequently, Arif filed a fresh writ petition, arguing that his review petitions should have been heard by a three-judge bench in an open court. This petition led to a landmark decision by a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in September 2014. The bench ruled that henceforth, all death sentence cases must be heard by a three-judge bench in open court. Consequently, Arif's review petition was reheard by a three-judge bench.
Key Arguments and Judicial Reasoning
During the review, Arif's plea contested the trial court's reliance on call data records as evidence. He argued that these records were not accompanied by the appropriate certificate required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which governs the admissibility of electronic records in court. However, the three-judge bench dismissed this argument on November 3, 2022. The court stated that even if the findings based on call data records were disregarded, "the other circumstances on record do clearly spell out and prove beyond any doubt the involvement of the review petitioner in the crime in question."
The bench further highlighted that Arif's disclosure statement had been proven and had directly led the police to a hideout at G-73, Batla House in New Delhi. Upon arrival, the police team faced gunfire. After an individual named Abu Shamal, alias Faisal, died in the ensuing encounter, firearms and ammunition were recovered. The court rejected the submission that this recovery or encounter could not be linked to Arif's disclosure statement, deeming it "not quite correct."
Assessment of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
Regarding the request to consider mitigating circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation, the court elaborated on the necessary judicial balance. It noted that "...the cumulative effect of the aggravating factors and the mitigating circumstances must be taken into account before the death sentence is awarded." In applying this principle to Arif's case, the court found no record of mitigating circumstances in his favour. It stated that suggestions of possible retribution and rehabilitation were unsupported by any material evidence.
Conversely, the court pointed to clear aggravating circumstances, particularly emphasizing that the attack constituted a direct assault on India's unity, integrity, and sovereignty. These factors were deemed to "completely outweigh" any remotely considered mitigating circumstances on record, reinforcing the gravity of the offense and the justification for the death penalty.
This latest development, with the Supreme Court issuing a notice to the Delhi government, marks another critical phase in the legal proceedings surrounding one of India's most notorious terrorism cases, underscoring the enduring pursuit of justice for the victims of the Red Fort attack.
