SC: Judgment by the designated court, upheld by SC can’t be overturned under Article 32.

    The plea of a juvenile of an accused in the 1992 Mumbai Blast Case was heard by a three judge-bench comprising of, HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA, and HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE.

    The relevant facts of the case were that the petitioner was one of the accused in the 1992 Mumbai Bomb Blast case and during the pendency of the trial he had approached the designated court seeking the protection from the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000. The same was however rejected and the petitioner was awarded rigorous imprisonment for life. Upon this, the petitioner challenged the decision but the same was rejected again and the SC held that TADA is an Act for special purposes and that it will have precedence over any other legislation.

    The petitioner then approached the SC under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution seeking a Writ of Certiorari for setting aside his sentence and grant him the benefit of juvenility. He agreed of maintaining his conviction. While seeking bail he made his reference to the case of Mohd Jalees Ansari and Others VS Central Bureau of Investigation. In that particular case, the accused was allowed to raise the plea of juvenility under TADA.

    The Supreme Court rejected the plea and stated that the issue of juvenility that was raised in the Designated court as well as this court, has been heard and dealt with. The reliefs which have been asked  for in the petition would require the Court, to overturn the sentence which was imposed on the petitioner as a result of the TADA case 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 to file a curative petition.

    Case Details

    MOHAMMAD MOIN FARIDULLAH QURESHI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Writ Petition (Criminal) No.287/2020

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