Frantic cries of injustice founded on perceived erroneous application of law or appreciation of facts will certainly not be enough to extend the frontiers of this jurisdiction, the Bench observed.
Kashmir valley’s longest serving prisoner would continue to be in Prison as Supreme Court rejected his Writ petition seeking release.
Ashiq Hussain Faktoo, is a former commander of the Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen (JM) and a separatist. Faktoo has been serving a life term on account of his involvement in the murder of human rights activist Hridhay Nath Wanchoo in 1992. He has been in jail since 1993.
Designated Court under TADA Act had acquitted the accused. On Appeal by CBI, the Supreme Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Review petition which was filed, was also dismissed by the Apex Court.
Dismissing his Writ petition the Bench comprising of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant and A.M. Khanwilkar held “The present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by no stretch of reasoning would fit into any of the permissible categories of post-conviction exercises permissible in law as laid down by this Court. The doctrine of ex debito justitiae being circumscribed by the judgment of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra (supra) it is for the petitioner to exhaust the said remedy, if is he so inclined and so advised. Merely because in the comprehension of the writ petitioner the judgment of this Court is erroneous would not enable the Court to reopen the issue in departure to the established and settled norms and parameters of the extent of permissible exercise of jurisdiction as well as the Page 12 12 procedural law governing such exercise.”
The Court further observed: “The principle of ex debito justitiae is founded on a recognition of a debt that the justice delivery system owes to a litigant to Page 10 10 correct an error in a judicial dispensation. Its application, by the very nature of things, cannot be made to depend on varying perceptions of legal omissions and commissions but such recognition of the debt which have the potential of opening new vistas of exercise of jurisdiction to relook concluded cases, must rest on surer foundations which have been discerned and expressed in Rupa Ashok Hurra (supra). Frantic cries of injustice founded on perceived erroneous application of law or appreciation of facts will certainly not be enough to extend the frontiers of this jurisdiction.”
Read the Judgment here.