SC rejects convicts' plea against 2-judge bench hearing Godhra train burning appeals
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for two convicts, told a bench comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar that it has been held in the Red Fort terror attack case, in which Mohammad Arif alias Ashfaq was handed down the death penalty, that a three-judge bench has to hear cases pertaining to award of the capital punishment.
'Suppose, this bench of two judges decides to award death penalty to some accused then it has to be re-argued before another bench of three judges,' the senior lawyer said.
A Constitution bench of the apex court had in its September 2014 judgement concluded that in all cases in which death sentence was awarded by the high court, such matters be listed before a bench of three judges.
Dismissing the submissions, the bench referred to relevant Supreme Court rules and the judgement, and said a three-judge bench has to hear appeals in cases where the high courts have either confirmed death penalty or awarded it after hearing the appeals of parties.
'The Gujarat High Court, in the present case, commuted the death penalty of 11 convicts into life imprisonment and did not award the death penalty…The trial court had awarded the death penalty in this case,' Justice Maheshwari said, adding the rule and the apex court judgement did not bar hearing of the appeals in the present case by a two-judge bench.
'The objection is repelled,' the bench said and commenced the final hearing in the case.
Earlier on April 24, the top court said it will commence final hearing on May 6 and 7 on the appeals filed by the Gujarat government and several other convicts in the 2002 Godhra train burning case.
On February 27, 2002, 59 people were killed when the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express was burnt at Gujarat's Godhra, triggering riots in the state.
Several appeals have been filed in the apex court challenging the October 2017 verdict of the Gujarat High Court which had upheld the conviction of several convicts and commuted the death penalties of 11 people to life term.
The high court had upheld the 31 convictions in the case and commuted the death penalties of the 11 convicts to life term, the counsel had said.
While the state has appealed against the commutation of death penalty to life term for the 11 convicts, several convicts have challenged the high court's verdict upholding their convictions in the case.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
26 minutes ago
- India.com
Big setback for Donald Trump as Federal Court strikes down birthright citizenship order across US; how will it affect Indians?
(Image: Reuters) New Delhi: A federal court in America has again stayed President Donald Trump's order which said that if a child's parents are living illegally in America, then that child will not get American citizenship. This is the third time that the court has stopped Trump's order from being implemented. The court also said that the final decision on this matter will be taken by the Supreme Court, but until any order comes from there, this rule of Trump will not be implemented. When was the order passed? Trump had banned Birthright Citizenship by signing an executive order on January 20, the day of his swearing-in. A few days after this, the US Federal Court had stayed President Donald Trump's decision to end the right to birthright citizenship for 14 days. Earlier on June 28, the US Supreme Court had given a decision in favour of President Trump. The Supreme Court had said that the judges of the lower courts cannot stop Trump's birthright citizenship order across the country. They should reconsider their order. What did the US Supreme Court say? The Supreme Court had said with a majority of 6-3 that a federal judge alone cannot decide to stop policies across the country. Now if a case like Trump's order has to be stopped, then many people will have to sue together, not just one state or person. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the decision, had said – the job of federal courts is not to monitor government orders. Their job is to resolve matters according to the powers given by Parliament. However, the court did not give any immediate decision on Trump's order and also ordered not to allow Trump's order to be implemented for 30 days i.e. till July 28. This means that for now, children born in America will continue to get citizenship, as they used to get earlier. Under which 3 situations citizenship is not granted by Trump's order? The executive order by which Trump abolished the birthright citizenship law is named 'Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship'. This order refuses to grant American citizenship in 3 situations. If the mother of a child born in America is living there illegally. At the time of the child's birth, the mother is a legal but temporary resident of America. The father should not be a US citizen or a legal permanent resident at the time of the child's birth. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution gives the right to birthright citizenship. Through this, children of immigrants living in the US also get the right to citizenship. What will be the effect on Indians? According to the data of the US Census Bureau till 2024, about 54 lakh Indians live in America. This is about one and a half percent of the US population. Two-thirds of these people are first generation immigrants. That is, they went to America first in the family, but the rest are citizens born in America. If the Supreme Court gives an order in favour of Trump's bill, then it will become difficult for first generation immigrants to get American citizenship. However, if it gives an order against it, then citizenship will remain as before.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Assam's Foreigners' Tribunals disregard constitutional safeguards: report
The quasi-judicial Foreigners' Tribunals (FTs) in Assam have become routine instruments of exclusion by disregarding due process and constitutional safeguards, a comprehensive study of these tribunals and the broader legal crisis of India's citizenship adjudication has found. The report by the Bengaluru-based National Law School of India University (NLSIU) and the Queen Mary University of London, to be formally released on Sunday (July 27, 2025), called for an urgent, fundamental rethinking of the legal structures governing citizenship in India given the possibility of an Assam-like exercise to update the National Register of Citizens (NRC) across the country. Titled 'Unmaking Citizens: The Architecture of Rights Violations and Exclusion in India's Citizenship Trials', the report has been authored by Mohsin Alam Bhat of Queen Mary University, Arushi Gupta, and Shardul Gopujkar, with the support of researchers and law students from the NLSIU, and members of Parichay Legal Aid Clinic. 'As of 2025, Assam's tribunals have declared nearly 166,000 people as 'foreigners'. In addition to more than 85,000 pending cases, these tribunals may also soon hear more than a million appeals from those excluded from the NRC,' Mr. Bhat said. The report analyses more than 1,200 Gauhati High Court orders, key Supreme Court judgments, and extensive interviews with lawyers and litigants. It documents 'widespread arbitrariness in decision-making, including the wholesale rejection of documentary and oral evidence, and the absence of legal norms to protect individuals from wrongful targeting'. 'Citizenship adjudication engages constitutionally significant questions with profound consequences, including the risk of statelessness. Such determinations require bodies that are legally constituted, independent, impartial, and composed of competent legal officers,' the study summarises in a chapter on 'institutionalised arbitrariness'. The report argued that the FT system fails on all these counts. 'It lacks a secure legal foundation, is vulnerable to executive interference, and is staffed by inadequately qualified adjudicators. It thus stands in stark violation of the rule of law and the right to an effective remedy under both domestic and international law,' it said, adding that the FTs have become routine instruments of exclusion and violate the right to a fair trial. 'Lowering standards' Assam currently has 100 FTs, each headed by a judge-like member, which were formed after the Supreme Court scrapped the controversial Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act of 1983 in 2005. Of these 100 tribunals, 36 are permanent and 54 require periodic extension of terms from the Ministry of Home Affairs. The study further highlights that the appointment process for FT members is opaque, with no guaranteed tenure. Advertisements by the Gauhati High Court and notifications from the Assam Government's Political Department specify terms of one or two years, varying by executive whim, and extendable at the State's discretion, it says. 'This tenure is governed by no legislation or by-laws and depends entirely on executive whim, despite being an essential legislative function. Moreover, it is violative of the Supreme Court's judgments holding that a tenure of less than 5 years threatens to compromise the quality of adjudication by tribunals,' it said. 'The qualifications for FT members have progressively weakened. In 2011, only retired judicial officers from the Assam Judicial Service, experienced in procedural law, were eligible. They could serve until age 67, with salaries based on last drawn pay plus allowances. This ensured appointments of individuals with judicial expertise. By 2015, eligibility expanded to include advocates with at least 10 years of practice, lowering the standard,' the report said. Appointments became two-year contracts with fixed monthly pay, enabling lawyers without judicial experience to decide critical citizenship matters. The 2019 revisions diluted requirements further; minimum practice dropped to seven years, minimum age to 35, and appointments became more flexible, allowing less experienced candidates to adjudicate complex citizenship issues, thereby compromising the quality of justice,' it stated. A Gauhati High Court notification added criteria of 'fair knowledge of the official language of Assam' and 'Assam's historical background giving rise to foreigners' issues.' Yet, no requirement exists for expertise in immigration or citizenship law, the report pointed out. The authors noted with concern that citizenship determination under the FTs has remained unchanged even after Parliament enacted the Immigration and Foreigners Act of 2025. 'The stakes for legal violations have become unprecedented, with the prospects of a nationwide NRC exercise and the recent spree of 'pushback' deportations in Assam,' they said, calling for an overhaul of the legal structures governing citizenship in India.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
AUT writes to CM on withdrawal of SLP in SC
Trichy: The Association of University Teachers (AUT) has written to chief minister M K Stalin over the demand for withdrawal of the special leave petition (SLP) filed in the Supreme Court, which they say unfairly blocks the promotion and monetary benefits due to aided college teachers under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). In a statement, general secretary of AUT, K Raja, said that while teachers in govt colleges have received CAS benefits as per GO No. 5 dated Jan 11, 2021, their counterparts in aided colleges have been denied the same. "Thousands of teachers are pushed to the corner over the denial of CAS benefits, leading to frustration," said Raja. The petition said that despite court orders in favour of teachers from Urumu Dhanalakshmi College in Trichy, including directions to release monetary benefits, the higher education department moved the apex court. Citing selective implementation of CAS benefits in certain regions like Coimbatore and Thanjavur, the AUT called the SLP "anti-teacher" and urged the state to uphold parity and fairness by immediately withdrawing it.
