Last Updated:

Nirbhaya Verdict: State Counsel In SC Sidharth Luthra Opines Curative Petition Won't Stand

Sidharth Luthra, senior advocate in the SC & former ASG who batted for the state and fought for Nirbhaya each step of the way spoke to Republic TV on Tuesday

Sidharth Luthra, senior advocate in the Supreme Court and former ASG who batted for the state and fought for Nirbhaya each step of the way spoke to Republic TV on Tuesday afternoon after the Patiala House Court issued a death warrant for the execution of the 4 rapists in the horrific gangrape-murder case.

The former ASG welcomed the Delhi court's verdict and went on to explain how any curative petition filed by the accused of the Nirbhaya case in the Supreme Court will not stand on any firm ground. "The curative jurisdiction is very limited. While the accused have the right to file a curative petition, according to me the accused don't have the main ground to file a curative petition in the Supreme Court." He also went on to explain how curative petitions are heard in the chambers and not in the open courtroom. 

READ | Nirbhaya's rapists to be executed on Jan 22, Tihar Jail seeks hangman from UP prison

Putting the order in context, Luthra spoke about how the verdict has sent an important message to the world. "The one thing that this case showed is that in India, the legal system does work in serious offences. That is the message we intended to send out to the world. The court does what is legally right and that is what has happened in this case." 

"A development, in this case, was upheld in the Supreme Court where the consensus for society's plight for justice has been evolved as a mechanism for determining the death penalty to be levied or not. This will go a long way as a deterrent for heinous offences," he opined.

READ |  MASSIVE: Nirbhaya's rapists to be hanged on Jan 22; Delhi court issues death warrant

Arguments in the Patiala House Court

Initially, the advocate for one of the accused- Mukesh stated that he could not file his vakalatnama in time because of his ill-health. Thereafter, Vrinda Grover, the amicus curiae in the case, informed the court that the process for filing curative petitions for the convicts was underway. Later, the Public Prosecutor argued that no plea of any convict was pending with either the President or any court in the country.

Moreover, he contended that the issuance of death warrants did not imply that the convicts would be immediately hanged. He assured that 14 days’ time would be provided to the convicts to file review petitions. Thereafter, both the Public Prosecutor and the Amicus Curiae observed that the curative petition was not an option for the convicts. The judge also expressed his dismay at the delaying tactics of the counsel of Nirbhaya’s rapists. He noted that the legal remedies should be exercised within a time limit. 

READ | 'Faith in law restored': Nirbhaya's mother as court sets Jan 22 hanging date for rapists

READ | 'It's a win for all Nirbhayas living in the country': Swati Maliwal hails death warrant

First Published:
By 2030, 40% Indians will not have access to drinking water