1993 Mumbai Blasts Convicts PLEA Claiming Juvenility rejected by SC
On March 1993, a series of 13 bomb explosions took place in Mumbai killing 257 people and injuring over 713 others. The attacks were planned by master terrorist Dawood Ibrahim, a notorious underworld Criminal and India’s ‘most wanted’ fugitive, presently hiding in Pakistan.
One of the terrorist arrested for the above dastardly crime was terrorist Muhammad Moin Faridulla.He was convicted in the 1993 Mumbai blasts case but sought leniency under the Juvenile Justice Act, claiming he was juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence. The Supreme Court has now dismissed his petition filed by terrorist Muhammad Moin Faridulla,
The three-judge bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee declined Faridulla’s plea saying that the judgment which has attained finality cannot be challenged with a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The bench said that the relief sought in the plea would essentially require the court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, to overturn the sentence imposed on him in the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) case by a designated court, when the conviction and sentence have been upheld by this court.
“The remedy of a petition under Article 32 would thus not be available in the light of the above facts. The petition is hence dismissed on grounds of maintainability,” the bench in its order passed on Friday.
The apex court was hearing an Article 32 petition seeking setting aside the sentence, extending the benefit of juvenility, while maintaining the conviction.
Article 32, one of the fundamental rights under the Constitution, entitles each citizen to the ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies’, or affirms the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution.
“On March 21, 2013, the appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction was dismissed by this court. On the issue of juvenility, the court holds that TADA, being an act enacted for special purposes, will have precedence over any other legislation,” the bench said.
