Background
On February 27, 2002, 58 people—mostly kar sevaks returning from Ayodhya—died in a fire inside Coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express at Godhra, Gujarat. This tragic incident triggered one of India’s worst communal riots. After a lengthy investigation and trial:
In 2011, a special court convicted 31 individuals:
– 11 were sentenced to death
– 20 were sentenced to life imprisonment
– 63 were acquitted
In 2017, the Gujarat High Court commuted the death sentences of the 11 convicts to life imprisonment and affirmed the life sentences of the remaining 20.
What’s Happening Now
On May 6, 2025, the Supreme Court began final hearings in Criminal Appeal No. 517/2018 and other connected matters. These include:
– Appeals filed by the convicts challenging their conviction
– An appeal by the State of Gujarat seeking reinstatement of the death penalty for the 11 whose sentences were commuted
The matter is being heard by a two-judge bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar.
The Legal Crux
The central question before the Court is:
Can the Supreme Court reinstate a death penalty already commuted by the High Court?
Key Arguments
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing Abdul Raheman Dhantiya (@Kankatto), argued that as per the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment in Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, death penalty cases must be heard by a bench of at least three judges.
He also cited Order VI, Rule III of the Supreme Court Rules, which mandates that:
“In cases where the death sentence has been confirmed by the High Court, the appeal shall be heard by a bench of not less than three judges.”
The Bench’s View
The Court rejected this objection, clarifying that:
– This case does not involve a death sentence confirmed by the High Court
– Rather, the High Court commuted the death penalty
– The appeal is by the State, seeking to restore the death penalty
Therefore, the Court held that the Mohd. Arif precedent does not apply. The matter will continue to be heard by the existing two-judge bench.
Case Status So Far
Between 2022 and 2023, the Supreme Court granted interim and permanent bail to several convicts, including:
– Abdul Raheman, due to humanitarian grounds (his wife’s terminal illness and mentally challenged daughters)
– Farook, who had served 17 years and was found to have a limited role (stone pelting)
In August 2023, bail was denied to three other convicts due to the severity of their involvement in the crime.
Legal and Moral Questions
The case has reignited vital constitutional and moral debates:
– Can a death sentence, once commuted, be reinstated decades later?
– How should courts balance delay, rehabilitation, and judicial finality?
– Should the State pursue capital punishment in such delayed circumstances?
The answers may reshape India’s capital sentencing framework and how commutation orders are viewed in appellate courts.
Kanoonplus Commentary
While the Supreme Court retains the power to enhance or reinstate sentences, including the death penalty, such decisions must pass the test of fairness, proportionality, and due process. The Godhra case is not just about revisiting an old crime — it is about determining how justice must evolve when decades have passed and sentences have already been reconsidered.
The outcome will set a significant precedent in India’s criminal jurisprudence.
Follow for updates:
YouTube: https://youtube.com/@kanoonplus
Website: https://www.kanoonplus.com
WhatsApp Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaAUNStCcW4y5IUhaW1G
Tags:
#GodhraCase #DeathPenalty #SupremeCourtIndia #JusticeDelayed #Kanoonplus #GodhraCarnage #CriminalLaw #FIR #SCJudgment #LegalUpdate #IndianLaw