The Hindu : Front Page : Supreme Court rejects Shaukat plea for release

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, May 15, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Front Page

Front Page

Supreme Court rejects Shaukat plea for release

Legal Correspondent

No ground to entertain petition under Article 32

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a writ petition filed by Shaukat Hussain Guru for his release. Guru was convicted and sentenced to 10-year imprisonment in the Parliament attack case.

He contended that his continued detention was in violation of his fundamental right.

A Bench consisting of Justices P.P. Naolekar and V.S. Sirpurkar said: “We do not find any ground to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution [filing a petition directly in the apex court].

“Moreover, for granting the relief prayed for, it is necessary to set aside the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this court confirmed by dismissal of the review petition as also of the curative petition, which cannot be granted.”

In his petition, Shaukat alleged that though he was not charged under Section 123 of the Indian Penal Code (concealing with intent to facilitate design to wage war), he was convicted of that offence.

No opportunity

He had no opportunity of being heard on this charge and there was nothing in the charge sheet or in the evidence put to him.

It was argued that the apex court could correct its order if there was miscarriage of justice.

The Bench said: “It is settled law that a judgment of this court cannot be assailed invoking Article 32.

“This court has held that to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice, it may reconsider its judgment,” subject to the petitioner meeting certain requirements for exercising such a jurisdiction.

Mr. Justice Naolekar, writing the judgment, said the court had already held that the evidence on record justified the conviction of Shaukat under Section 123 of the IPC.

“The case which he had to meet under Section 123 is no different from the case relating to the major charges which he was confronted with.

“In the face of the stand he had taken and his conduct even after the attack, he could not have pleaded reasonable excuse for not passing on the information [to the police about the conspiracy to attack Parliament].”

The Bench pointed out that the review petition in which he had taken the same stand was rejected by this court. The subsequent curative petition, raising a specific ground that there was violation of the principles of natural justice, was also rejected.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page