SC dismisses plea to declare that mistrial happened in Mahatma Gandhi assassination case
The Supreme Court in the case observed wherein a plea is moved seeking directions to declare that the Bombay Public Security Measures (the Delhi Amendment) Act, 1948 being ultra vires to the Constitution of India and the application of it resulted in mistrial in the case of Mahatma Gandhi Assassination i.e., ( Rex v. Nathuram Godse And Ors.
In the present case, the petition was moved by Abhinav Bharat Congress through its President, Dr. Pankaj K Phadnis, wherein seeking direction to the Union Government to form an empowerment Committee of eminent persons which includes the representatives of Abhinav Bharat for giving Overseas Scholarship to the meritorious students for undertaking post graduate studies as it is being envisaged by Veer Savarkar in the year 1944, in the partial atonement of injustice being done Savarkar. Thus, the said court directed the respondents to issue a Public Apology to the younger brother of Mrs. Manorama Salvi Apte-, Dr. Balchandra Daulatrao
Salvi, for the custodial murder of his brother in law, Narayan Apte.
The bench comprising of Justice SK Kaul and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the case observed and is not pleased by the nature of prayers seek in the petition.
The bench in its order stated that it being one of the most misconceived petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the parties cannot walk into the Supreme Court in accordance with any prayer they want as it being a party in person the said court is still showing some concession and dismiss it by imposing a cost for an amount of Rs. 25000 which is to be deposited within a period of four weeks with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before the court that, I am not very happy with the prayers, but then it being the personal matter of petitioner’s.
The bench of Justice Kaul in the case remarked that then everyone can walk by filing the plea under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Thus, what being this? I this this court should impose cost on all this. You cannot waste this court time like this.
The counsel appearing before the court submitted that he would argue of on the legal point, weather the hanging suffers from haste, illegality and through malafide. It I could show the malafides.
Accordingly, the counsel appearing before the court also clarified that the present petition does not involve Savarkar or Godse, but the same being with respect to Narayan Apte.