SC: Judgment by the designated court, upheld by SC can’t be overturned under Article 32 [Read Order]

A bench comprising of, HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA, and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE heard a plea of juvenility of an accused in the 1992 Mumbai Blast Case.

The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was one of the accused in the 1992 Mumbai Bomb Blast case and during the pendency of the trial he approached the Designated court seeking the protection of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000. The same was rejected and the petitioner was given rigorous imprisonment for life. The petitioner challenged the decision but the same was rejected and the SC stated that TADA being an act for special purposes will have precedence over any other legislation

The petitioner then approached the SC in this present case under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari for setting aside the sentence of the petitioner while maintaining his conviction and for the grant of the benefit of juvenility and made his reliance on Mohd Jalees Ansari and Others vs Central Bureau of Investigation, where an accused was allowed to raise the plea of juvenility under TADA.

The Supreme Court while rejecting the plea of the petitioner stated that “The issue of juvenility was raised before the Designated Court as well as before this Court when the appeal was heard and has been specifically dealt with. The reliefs which have been sought in the petition would essentially require this Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, to overturn the sentence which has been imposed on the petitioner as an outcome of the TADA case before the Designated Court, when the conviction and sentence have been upheld by this court in the criminal appeal. The remedy of a petition under Article 32 would not be available in the above facts.”

The suggestion was however made to file a curative petition.

Case Details

Writ Petition (Criminal) No.287/2020

MOHAMMAD MOIN FARIDULLAH QURESHI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Counsel for petitioner- Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR

Coram- HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA, and  HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

Read Order @Latestlaws.com