In a relief for Amit Shah, the Supreme Court today rejected a petition filed by activist and former bureaucrat Harsh Mander challenging the discharge of the BJP president in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case.
Advertisement
Mander, a former bureaucrat, had filled a plea in the apex court challenging the Bombay high court order that had upheld the discharge of Shah by a trial court. Their aide Tulsiram Prajapati, an eyewitness to the encounter, was killed in 2006. It was alleged that the encounter was a fake one and since Shah was the home minister of Gujarat he should be made accountable.
To this, the bench responded that it does not consider anyone above the law but the court has to examine the “standing” of the person before it.
If the brother had come in appeal against the discharge it was an entirely different case, the SC observed.
A Bench of Justices SA Bobde and Ashok Bhushan heard Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Harish Salve, appearing for Mandar and Shah respectively, before dismissing the matter with a curt “rejected”.
Saying that the apex court could not shut its eyes when a serious injustice was being done, Sibal urged the bench to let his client file a revision petition in the High Court and seek re-trial of Shah since the CBI had even filed a chargesheet against the BJP president, naming him as Accused no. 16.
Sibal said, “CBI has filed the charge sheet but I am unable to understand why did they turn turtle. It is a case of murder”. Mandar had then moved the High Court against the discharge of Shah, but his plea had been rejected.
The trial in Sohrabuddin Sheikh case was shifted to Mumbai by the top court on September 27, 2012, and later the same special CBI court was asked to hold trial in the staged shoot-out of Prajapati.
“This court has already held that if one is not connected with the case, he can not interfere with anyone’s trial”, he said and added “it can not be a case that if State is not going to file an appeal, I will file the appeal”.
He also said this court has held that a third party can not be allowed to interfere in the trial unless it is an aggrieved party.
Advertisement
The HC in March this year had upheld this order holding that Mr Mander was not an aggrieved party in the case.
