Petition

Absolute Final Curative[ See the attachment below ]

This Petition seeks curation of order dated 4.8.2005 passed by the Supreme COurt of India which has resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice in as much as Muhammad Afzal, convicted for the attack on parliament 13.12.2001 has been sentenced to death penalty in violation of Article 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution of India in as much as he was denied legal representation during his detention, investigation and trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in coming to this conclusion held that his conviction by the trial and high court was proper erroneously held that the extent of legal aid does not extend to searching for a counsel of the Petitioner's choice. The Court failed to appreciate that Afzal had been given no counsel whatsoever, leave alone of his choice. The Court further failed to appreciate that the sessions Courts failure to follow the due procedure of law laid down under the said Delhi Legal Aid Rules to provide the effective legal representation to an under trial constitutes denial of due process that vitiated the trial and the show of prejudice is not required.

UPDATE:

The Supreme Court rejected the Curative Petition on the 12th of January 2007 on grounds of no merit.

There are two Mercy Petitions pending with the Hon'ble President of India. Afzal's Family has filed the first and Afzal himself has filed the second Mercy Petition.

Certificate by Ms. Jaising [ See the attachment below ]

In furtherance to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388, Indira Jaising, issued a certificate that this was a fit case for curation on the grounds that ;

The procedure established by law under Article 21 and 22 requires that no person be convicted and condemned to death without adequate and effective legal representation through state legal aid. The Delhi High Court has framed rules, hereinafter "High Court Rules", under Section 304 of the CrPC, which provide that if an accused is unrepresented and cannot afford a counsel, the sessions Judge shall make arrangements to employ counsel at Government expense. A list of 10 - 15 counsels willing to appear for the undefended (at state expense) is to be maintained and constantly revised in each district. The advocates placed on this list should be competent criminal lawyers not merely charity seekers. (See rule 4 of Vol. III, High Court Rules and Orders, Chapter 24 relating to sessions cases , Part C). Strict compliance of the said procedure established by law is mandatory to fulfill the requirement of due process. However the record bears proof of the fact that in the present case, the session's court failed to follow this procedure.