DR. PANKAJ KUMUDCHANDRA PHADNIS versus UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 662 · Decided: 28-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
DR. PANKAJ KUMUDCHANDRA PHADNIS
v.
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8293 of 2018)
MARCH 28, 2018
[S. A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.]
Mahatma Gandhi Assassination case – Prayer of writ
petitioner to reopen the case – Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated
about 70 years ago – Trial Court had convicted 7 accused persons
for offence of murder and conspiracy and acquitted one – High
Court had upheld the conviction of 5 accused persons and acquitted
two accused persons – After about 70 years, writ petition before
High Court on the basis of a new research – High Court declined to
entertain the writ petition and to go into two questions raised i.e.
whether the four bullets were fired as alleged and whether the Kapur
Commission Report be opened after the period of 46 years – Special
Leave Petition  –  Held: Criminal cases which resulted in conviction
and even execution of death sentences and the demise of those who
have served life sentences ought not to be reviewed – Moreover,
there is no provision in law for such review – A new research into a
long concluded matter would not justify a re-initiation of criminal
investigation – Petitioner’s attempt to reopen this controversy is as
an exercise in futility – Court must at all cost be wary of such
contentious issues and must not allow its jurisdiction to be invoked
for such purposes – SLP dismissed  –  Criminal Investigation.
Ram Kishan Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar
[1959] SCR 279 : AIR 1958 SC 538 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1959] SCR 279
  referred to
           Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 8293 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.06.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in PIL No. 32 of 2016.
   [2018] 6 S.C.R. 662
662
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
663
A. Sharan, Sr. Adv.(AC), Sanchit Guru, Ms. Garima Bose,
Ms. Aprajita Mukherjee, Samarth Khanna, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
Dr. Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis, Petitioner-in-person.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
O R D E R
S. A. BOBDE & L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
1. Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated on 30.1.1948; about 70
years ago.  9 accused were tried for the conspiracy and murder of
Gandhiji. After trial the judgment was delivered by Learned Special Judge,
Delhi on 10.02.1949 convicting seven accused and acquitting one.
Accused Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte were given death sentence,
four of the accused were given life sentence and remaining one was
given a sentence of seven years of Imprisonment.  The conviction was
challenged in Punjab High Court in Appeal, High Court vide judgment
dated 21.06.1949 upheld the conviction for five of the accused persons
and acquitted two of the accused persons.  None of the accused are
alive today.
2. The petitioner who describes himself “An Engineer,
Management Graduate, Ph.D and a Researcher with passion”
approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition1 in the year 2016.
The High Court declined to entertain the petition and go into two questions
raised i.e. whether the four bullets were fired as alleged and whether
the Kapur Commission Report should be reopened after the period of 46
years.
3. The delay with which the petitioner has raised this issue is
gross.  According to the petitioner, he moved the court after doing some
research about the circumstances in which Gandhiji’s assassination took
place and got convinced about the involvement of an unseen hand in the
assassination.  We are, however, not satisfied that new research into a
long concluded matter justifies a re-initiation of criminal investigation or
that anything that might be stated should be allowed to reopen a case
such as this. Criminal cases which result in conviction and even execution
of death sentences and the demise of those who have served life sentences
ought not to be reviewed, neither is there a provision in law for review.
But it was argued before us that the assassination of Gandhiji was an
1 PIL No.32 of 2016
DR. PANKAJ KUMUDCHANDRA  PHADNIS  v. U.O.I   MINISTRY
OF LAW AND JUSTICE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
664
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
event of far reaching consequences in the world and the nation has the
right to know the truth.  While undoubtedly the nation has right to know
the truth, such a right cannot be invoked where the truth is already well
known merely because some academic research raises a different
perspective in law. This 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.