Supreme Court judge in Afzal case slams critics of the judgement

NEW DELHI: Former Supreme Court judge P V Reddi, who headed a two-judge bench which upheld Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru’s death sentence in 2005, said fair criticism of SC judgements was welcome, but to say that the execution was a “judicial killing” amounted to “crossing the limit”.

Justices Reddi and P P Naolekar had upheld a Delhi HC verdict imposing death penalty on Afzal. However, the bench had reversed Shaukat Hussain Guru’s death penalty to 10 years’ imprisonment. It upheld the HC order to acquit SAR Geelani even though it found his role suspicious, and endorsed the acquittal of Afsan Guru aka Navjot Sandhu.

Trial judge S N Dhingra, who later became an HC judge, had awarded death penalty to Afzal, Shaukat and Geelani.

Some JNU students recently termed Afzal’s hanging, under the UPA government, a judicial killing and alleged that the terrorist did not get a fair trial. It was followed by exhome minister P Chidambaram’s statement that there were “grave doubts” about the extent of Afzal’s involvement in the terror attack.

Talking to TOI from Hyderabad, Justice Reddi said, “The judgment speaks for itself. Those who celebrate Afzal martyrdom day must pick up the judgment and read it thoroughly before making comments or criticism.

Fair criticism of Supreme Court judgments is the hallmark of our democratic system that zealously guards the right to free speech. But to term it a judicial hanging is crossing the limit. The criticism must be decent and in public interest. If not, then it could hit at the root of democracy, of which Supreme Court is an important pillar.”