In a significant order, the Supreme Court held Tuesday that a death row convict whose review petition was not heard in open court can seek a fresh review despite the fact that his curative petition (filed after dismissal of the review to cure apparent defects) has been dismissed.
Review petitions are generally heard in judges’ chambers and are invariably dismissed. Curative petitions against such a review are also heard in chambers by a larger bench and also usually dismissed.
In a departure from this, a five-judge Constitution Bench of Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justices J.S. Khehar, J. Chelameswar, A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Nariman allowed the plea of Mohammed Arif, awarded the death sentence in the Red Fort bomb blast case, to seek a fresh review of the verdict.
A five-judge Constitution Bench had in September 2014 by a majority held that all review petitions in death cases must be heard in open court and not in judges’ chambers. However, the right of a limited oral hearing was permitted only in pending review petitions and such petitions to be filed in future, as well as those review petitions which are already dismissed but the death sentence is not executed. If curative petition has been dismissed subsequently, this benefit will not be available to the death row convict.
Mohammed Arif, in his petition, argued that the relief of limited oral hearing was denied to him and his curative plea was also dismissed in a chamber hearing. This was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution (equality before law. He said if a limited oral hearing was granted, he will be able to convince the court the facts and circumstances of this case do not justify awarding of the death penalty. On Tuesday the court allowed him to seek a fresh review of the death verdict, which will be heard in open court.
