Sohrabuddin encounter: Amit Shah gets Supreme Court relief, ex-IAS’ plea rejected
In relief to BJP president Amit Shah, the Supreme Court on Monday rejected a special leave petition filed by former IAS officer Harsh Mander challenging an order of the Bombay high court upholding the discharge of Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case.
A Bench of Justices S.A. Bobde and Ashok Bhushan dismissed the SLP observing that being a third party, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the appeal when Sohrabuddin’s brother Rubabuddin, the interested person had chosen to withdraw the appeal in the Bombay high court against the discharge.
On December 30, 2014 a CBI court in Mumbai had discharged Mr Shah in the alleged fake encounter case saying there existed “no case” against him and that he had been implicated for “political reasons”. The high court in March 2016 had upheld this order holding that Mr Mander was not an aggrieved party in the case and that his petition was not maintainable. The present appeal by Mr Mander is against this order.
Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mr Mander, submitted that the petitioner had filed the petition even before Rubabuddin, brother of Sohrabuddin withdrew his appeal. There are political reasons for the CBI not filing an appeal against the discharge. When there are serious allegations of murder the high court was wrong in dismissing the petition on locus standi without deciding the issue on merits. Public must get the feeling that nobody is above the law”.
Justice Bobde told the counsel “there is no dispute that no one is above the law. But you {petitioner} are not somebody who is seriously aggrieved When the person is genuinely aggrieved then the issue takes a different colour but when the person is not remotely connected and wants to revive the case then it’s a different matter”.
Referring to the political motive for CBI not filing the appeal, Justice Bobde said “that may be the motive. Amit Shah is a political man. We understand that aspect. We realise the impact of our order. Once he is discharged can he be interminably prosecuted.”
Senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for Mr Amit Shah, strongly opposed the petition and said third parties have no role in prosecuting an appeal as only the state or the complainant can prefer an appeal. He cited a catena of judgments to drive home the point that the appeal is not maintainable. The Bench agreed with Mr Salve and dismissed the appeal.
