Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court of India · 2 September 2014 · 5 judges
Article 21 requires that review petitions in death sentence cases be given a limited oral hearing in open court, not decided by circulation; appeals in such cases are to be heard by benches of three Judges.
Facts
Several prisoners under sentence of death filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court, and execution was stayed in each. They contended that death sentence cases should be heard by at least three, if not five, Judges, and that review petitions in such cases should be heard in open court rather than by circulation, so that Order XL Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which provides for disposal of review petitions by circulation without oral arguments, was unconstitutional as applied to them. A Constitution Bench in P.N. Eswara Iyer v. Registrar had upheld that rule in 1980. Mohd. Arif, whose appeal, review and curative petitions had been dismissed, also argued that his 13 years in jail amounted to serving a life sentence.
Questions before the Court
- Does Article 21 require an oral hearing in open court of review petitions in cases where the death sentence has been awarded?
- Should death sentence cases, and reviews in them, be heard by benches of at least three or five Judges?
- Could the death sentence of a petitioner whose review and curative petitions had been dismissed be reopened on the ground of his long incarceration?
What the Court held
- Death sentence cases are a distinct category because the penalty is irreversible and different judicial minds can reach opposite conclusions on the same facts. A just, fair and reasonable procedure under Article 21 therefore requires a limited oral hearing, in open court, of review petitions in all death sentence cases, including TADA cases.
- This does not conflict with P.N. Eswara Iyer, which remains binding for review petitions generally; review petitions in death sentence cases form a separate category. Oral argument is limited to an outer limit of 30 minutes.
- Appeals in which the High Court has awarded or confirmed the death sentence are to be heard by benches of three Judges, as Order VI Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 provides. A minimum of five Judges is not required, and a review should ordinarily go to the same bench that heard the appeal.
- The ruling applies to pending and future review petitions, and to dismissed reviews where the sentence has not been executed, which may be reopened within one month; it does not apply where a curative petition has been dismissed.
- Mohd. Arif's petition was dismissed: time spent in court proceedings does not convert a death sentence into life imprisonment, and 13½ years in jail is not a completed life sentence.
Why it matters
The judgment carves death sentence review petitions out of the general rule of disposal by circulation upheld in P.N. Eswara Iyer, holding that Article 21 itself mandates a limited open court oral hearing. It grounds this in the irreversibility of the death penalty and the divergence of judicial opinion on sentencing, and fixes a bench of three Judges for death sentence appeals.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Death penalty is irreversible in nature. Once a death sentence is executed, that results in taking away the life of the convict. If it is found thereafter that such a sentence was not warranted, that would be of no use as the life of that person cannot be brought back. This being so, we feel that if the fundamental right to life is involved, any procedure to be just, fair and reasonable should take into account the two factors mentioned above. That being so, we feel that a limited oral hearing even at the review stage is mandated by Art.21 in all death sentence cases.”
“when on the same set of facts, one judicial mind can come to the conclusion that the circumstances do not warrant the death penalty, whereas another may feel it to be a fit case fully justifying the death penalty, we feel that when a convict who has suffered the sentence of death and files a review petition, the necessity of oral hearing in such a review petition becomes an integral part of "reasonable procedure".”
“we feel that the fundamental right to life and the irreversibility of a death sentence mandate that oral hearing be given at the review stage in death sentence cases, as a just, fair and reasonable procedure under Article 21 mandates such hearing, and cannot give way to the severe stress of the workload of the Supreme Court.”
“Eswara Iyer's case clearly held that review applications in this Court form a class where an oral hearing could be eliminated without violating any constitutional provision. Therefore, I regret my inability to agree with the conclusion recorded by my learned brother Justice Nariman that the need for an oral hearing flows from the mandate of Article 21.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 21, Constitution
- Article 137, Constitution
- Article 145, Constitution
- Order XL Rule 3, Supreme Court Rules, 1966
- Order VI Rule 3, Supreme Court Rules, 2013
Related judgments
- Follows Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)“the upshot of all of them was that Article 21 was to be read along with other fundamental rights, and so read not only has the procedure established by law to be just, fair and reasonable, but also the law itself has to be reasonable” (page 49)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India
- Case
- Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 77 of 2014, with Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 137 of 2010, 52 of 2011, 39 of 2013, 108 of 2014 and 117 of 2014
- Decided
- 2 September 2014
- Bench
- R.M. Lodha, CJI, Jagdish Singh Khehar, J., J. Chelameswar, J., A.K. Sikri, J., Rohinton Fali Nariman, J.
- Opinions
- Majority 4:1. Majority judgment by R.F. Nariman, J., signed by R.M. Lodha, CJI, Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. and A.K. Sikri, J.; J. Chelameswar, J. dissented on the holding that review petitions in death sentence cases must be heard orally in open court.