2000 Red Fort attack: SC seeks govt response on death row convict's plea

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Delhi government on a curative petition filed by Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist Mohd Arif against his death sentence

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the Delhi government’s response to a curative petition filed by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist and Pakistani national Mohd Arif, who is on death row for the 2000 Red Fort attack that killed three Indian Army jawans, reported Bar and Bench.

 

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Vikram Nath and J K Maheshwari issued notice to the Delhi government after hearing Arif's plea in open court.

 

Arif is challenging the Supreme Court’s November 2022 judgment, which dismissed his review petition and upheld the death sentence awarded to him for the attack on the 7 Rajputana Rifles unit inside the Red Fort on the night of December 22, 2000.

 

What's the case?

According to the prosecution, some intruders entered the area inside the Red Fort where the 7 Rajputana Rifles unit of the Indian Army was stationed. They opened fire, killing three Army jawans, before fleeing the site by scaling the rear boundary wall of the fort.

 

Arif was arrested days later and tried under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, the Foreigners Act and the Explosive Substances Act. A Delhi sessions court convicted him in October 2005 and sentenced him to death. The Delhi High Court confirmed the sentence in September 2007, and the Supreme Court upheld it in August 2011.

 

Subsequently, Arif challenged the confirmation of his death sentence by a two-judge bench, arguing that such matters ought to be decided by a three-judge bench. While his initial review and curative pleas were dismissed, a Constitution Bench ruling in September 2014 held that all death sentence confirmation cases must be heard by a bench of three judges.

 

"In all cases in which death sentence has been awarded by the High Court in appeals pending before the Supreme Court, only a bench of three judges will hear the same. This is for the reason that at least three judicially trained minds need to apply their minds at the final stage of the journey of a convict on death row...," the apex court ruled.

 

This led to a fresh review before a three-judge bench. Arif, before a Bench led by former CJI U U Lalit, argued that the previous judgment erred in considering the call data records (CDRs) under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, the report added. In 2022, the Court rejected his argument, stating that even after excluding such material, the remaining evidence conclusively established his role in the attack. On sentencing, the Court found no mitigating factors in his favour, noting that he was a foreign national convicted of waging war against India and murdering Army personnel, reported Bar and Bench.

 

Arif has now invoked the Court’s curative jurisdiction against that verdict. A curative petition represents the final legal remedy available to a litigant to challenge a verdict that has already been affirmed twice by the Supreme Court, through the dismissal of both the appeal and the review petition.