Rotomac Kothari owes various banks Rs 3,695-cr: CBI files FIR

New Delhi, Jan 14: The curative petitions of Vinay Sharma and Mukesh, who were sentenced to death in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, was on Tuesday rejected by a five-judge Supreme Court Bench led by Justice N.V. Ramana.

In a three-page order, the Bench concluded, after an in chamber consideration that began about 1.45 p.m., that there was no merit in their pleas to spare them from the gallows.

“We have gone through the curative petitions and relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra versus Ashok Hurra. Hence, the curative petitions are dismissed,” the court held.

Curative is a rare remedy devised by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgment in the Rupa Ashok Hurra case in 2002. A party can take only two limited grounds in a curative petition - one, he was not heard by the court before the adverse judgment was passed, and two, the judge was biased. A curative plea, which follows the dismissal of review petition, is the last legal avenue open for convicts in the Supreme Court. Sharma was the first among the four convicts to file a curative.

The Bench also rejected their pleas to stay the execution of their death sentence and for oral hearing in open court.

Besides Justice Ramana, the Bench comprised Arun Mishra, Rohinton Nariman, R. Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan.

Curative petitions were filed in the Supreme Court by both convicts on January 9. The petitions had come just days after a Delhi sessions court schedulled the execution of all the four convicts in Tihar jail on January 22.

Sharma and Mukesh, in separate curative petitions, argued that there was a “sea change” in the death penalty jurisprudence since their convictions. Carrying out the death sentence on such changed circumstances would be a “gross miscarriage of justice”.

In his plea, Sharma said the Court had commuted the death penalty in several rape and murder cases since 2017, when it first confirmed the death penalty to the Nirbhaya convicts.

“fter the pronouncement of judgment in 2017, there have been as many as 17 cases involving rape and murder in which various three-judge Benches of the Supreme Court have commuted the sentence of death,” the petition contended.

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a review petition filed by Akshay Singh, another of the four four condemned men, to review its May 5, 2017 judgment confirming the death penalty. It also refused his plea to grant him three weeks' time to file a mercy petition before the President of India.

A Bench led by Justice R. Banumathi had said it was open for the Nirbhaya case convicts to avail whatever time the law prescribes for the purpose of filing a mercy plea.

Akshay (33), Mukesh (30), Pawan Gupta (23) and Sharma (24) had brutally gang-raped a 23-year-old paramedical student in a moving bus on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012. She died of her injuries a few days later.

The case shocked the nation and led to the tightening of anti-rape laws. Rape, especially gang rape, is now a capital crime.

One of the accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar jail. A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board. He was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term.

New Delhi, Mar 6: Justice S Muralidhar Thursday cleared the air over the controversy on his transfer from the Delhi High Court to Punjab and Haryana High Court, saying he had replied to Chief Justice of India S A Bobde's communication that he was fine with the proposal and had no objection to it.

The controversy erupted after the Centre issued Justice Muralidhar's transfer notification close to mid night of February 26 -- the day a bench headed by him had pulled up Delhi Police for failing to register FIRs against three BJP leaders for their alleged hate speeches which purportedly led to the recent violence in northeast Delhi.

Justice Muralidhar (58), who received a grand farewell on Thursday from a huge gathering including judges and lawyers amid big rounds of applause, said he wanted to clear the confusion on his transfer and narrated the sequence of events from the time he received CJI's communication till February 26.

The Supreme Court collegium, headed by the CJI, had in a meeting on February 12 recommended the transfer of Justice Muralidhar to Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Justice Muralidhar was number three in the Delhi High Court, his parent high court as a judge.

Explaining the transfer process, he said the 5-member collegium sends to the Centre a recommendation that a judge of a high court should be transferred to another high court. The judge concerned is not at this stage under orders of transfers. That happens only when the collegium's recommendation fructifies into a notification.

“In my case, the collegium's decision was communicated to me by the CJI on February 17 by a letter which sought my response. I acknowledged receipt of the letter, I was then asked to clarify what I meant. As I saw it, if I was to be transferred from the Delhi High Court any way, I was fine with moving to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

“I therefore clarified to the CJI that I did not object to the proposal. An explanation for my transfer reached the press...on February 20 quoting 'sources in the Supreme Court collegium', confirming what has been indicated to me a couple of days earlier,” he said.

The CJI's letter dated February 14 was delivered to Justice Muralidhar on February 17, the day when the family's pet labrador Sakhi breathed her last.

He said February 26 was perhaps the longest working day of his life as a judge of the Delhi High Court, where he has spent 14 years on the bench.

He said it began at 12:30 am with a sitting at his residence with Justice A J Bhambhani, under the orders of Justice G S Sistani, to deal with a PIL filed by Rahul Roy seeking safe passage of ambulances carrying the injured riot victims.

“When I received a call at my residence from the lawyer for the petitioner, I first called Justice Sistani to ask what should be done, knowing that the Chief Justice (CJ) was on leave. Justice Sistani explained that he too was officially on leave the whole of February 26 and that I should take up the matter.

“This fact is stated in the order passed by the bench after the hearing. Later that day, upon urgent mentioning, as the de facto CJ's bench, Justice Talwant Singh and I took up another fresh PIL on the CJ's board seeking registration of FIRs for hate speeches. After the orders passed on that day, the above two PILs remained on the CJ's Board,” he said.

Justice Muralidhar ended the speech saying the notification which was issued close to midnight of February 26 did two things.

“First, it transferred me to Punjab and Haryana High Court. Second, it appointed me to a position from where I can never be transferred, or removed and in which I shall always be proud to remain. A 'former judge' of arguably the best high court in the country. The High Court of Delhi,” he said, following a standing ovation by all the judges and the gathering, including his family members, former judges, lawyers, court staff and media persons.

Earlier in the day, a farewell programme was also organised by the Delhi High Court Bar Association.

While addressing the gathering at the bar's function, Justice Muralidhar concluded his address saying “When justice has to triumph, it will triumph ... Be with the truth - Justice will be done.”

Justice Muralidhar's mother, wife Usha Ramanathan, former Delhi High Court chief justice A P Shah, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan and former Delhi University VC Upendra Baxi were also present at the later function that was organised by the court.

Bidding adieu to Justice Muralidhar, Delhi HC CJ D N Patel said it was an occasion which has come with a saddening effect and his absence will be felt institutionally as well as personally.

Delhi government standing counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra termed Justice Muralidhar as a “highly intellectual, courageous, upright and incorruptible judge” and sang bengali song 'ekla chalo re' to describe him.

Mehra said he joins Delhi High Court Bar Association in “strongly condemning” Justice Muralidhar's transfer.

New Delhi, Feb 6: DMK Lok Sabha member M K Kanimozhi on Wednesday challenged popular actor Rajinikanth to raise his voice for Muslims, saying they have "already been affected" by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and are protesting on streets against the law.

Reacting to his statements earlier in the day in Chennai that "CAA is no threat to Muslims" and "if they face trouble I will be the first person to raise voice for them," Kanimozhi, daughter of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi, told news agency that "Muslims in India have already been affected due to CAA".

"Let him (Rajinikanth) come forward and raise his voice for the affected Muslims", she said.

She said the members of the community have been protesting as the law leaves out Muslims.,

Asked whether Rajinikanth, through this pro-CAA statement, was moving closer to the BJP, the MP from Tuticorin said, "What he has said is no different from the BJP's narrative which we have been listening in parliament for the last few days".

Under CAA, members of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities who came to India from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan till December 31, 2014, to escape religious persecution there will not be treated as illegal immigrants, and be given Indian citizenship.

Rajinikanth had asserted that the legislation did not pose any threat to Muslims. He wondered as to how Muslims, who chose to stay back in India following Partition will be sent out of the country. Besides, the central government had assured that Indian people will have no issues in view of CAA, he noted.

He charged that some political parties were instigating people against the CAA for their selfish interests.