By IANS
New Delhi : Shaukat Hussain Guru, convicted by the Supreme Court on charges of concealing information on the 2001 terror attack on parliament, Monday moved the same court challenging his conviction.
The apex court admitted Shaukat’s petition challenging his conviction despite having rejected the same twice earlier.
Shaukat, serving a 10-year term in Delhi’s Tihar Jail, contended that he had been convicted without the mandatory trial and “due process of law”, which violated his fundamental right of life and liberty under Article 21 of the constitution.
A bench of Justices B.N. Agarwal and P.K. Balasubramanyam issued notice to the Delhi government and Tihar Jail authorities on Shaukat’s petition.
Shaukat had originally been awarded death sentence by the trial court and the Delhi High Court had confirmed it but the apex court had reduced the sentence to jail term.
He was first convicted Dec 12, 2002 by the trial court on 12 counts of various charges, including five of terrorism, two for waging war against the country besides other charges of murder and possession of explosive.
The trial court had awarded him death sentence, which was endorsed by the high court on Oct 29, 2003. While hearing his appeal earlier, the Supreme Court in August 2005 acquitted him of all charges on which the trial court had convicted him.
The apex court convicted him instead on a new charge of concealing information about the terror plot from the authorities and sent him to jail for 10 years.
Shaukat had twice challenged his conviction by the apex court on the new charge – first through a review petition in April 2006 and then through a curative petition in January 2007.
But with the apex court dismissing both his petitions, he has approached it again under Article 32 of the constitution – invoked when a fundamental right of a citizen is violated.
Arguing for Shaukat, former law minister and senior counsel Shanti Bhushan told the bench that a person could be deprived of his life or liberty only through the due process of law, which requires his mandatory trial at the lower court, giving him an elaborate opportunity to give evidence in his defence and examine witnesses against himself.
He contended that though the apex court acquitted Shaukat on various charges it did not put him to mandatory trial while convicting him on a different charge as required by the criminal procedure.
Asked by the bench if a person can invoke Article 32 to move the apex court against its own judgment, Bhushan cited an apex court ruling, which convinced the court of Shaukat’s right to approach it again, challenging its own judgement.
The apex court accordingly admitted Shaukat’s petition and issued notice on it.
While challenging his conviction by the apex court, Bhushan did not seek his retrial at the lower court saying it would not be a fit case for retrial as the convict had already undergone five and half years of imprisonment.