Delhi HC rejects petition seeking a committee to monitor Delhi blast trial, conclude in 6 months

The petition filed said that the previous Red Fort blast case of December 2000 had taken 7 years for the trial court to conclude

New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Wednesday refused to entertain a petition seeking the appointment of a committee to monitor the Red Fort blast trial and conclude it within six months, saying that “mere apprehension of delay in a trial that has not still begun cannot warrant judicial supervision.”

The November 10 explosion, carried out using an improvised explosive device fitted into a stolen vehicle, was among the deadliest attacks in the capital in recent years. At least 12 people were killed. (Representative photo)

A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a petition filed by former Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) Pankaj Pushkar, which said that the previous Red Fort blast case of December 2000 had taken seven years for the trial court to conclude, and there was a likelihood of delay in this case too.

Opposing the petition, the Centre’s counsel, additional solicitor general Chetan Sharma, said that the case had been transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and would now be handled in accordance with the framework prescribed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

The bench said that the trial had not yet begun, and mere apprehension of delay could not justify intervention. Terming the petition a “good piece of essay”, the court said it was not inclined to pass any direction.

“What is this? Are we going to sit & monitor as to what happens in the trial? It’s not yet started & you are asking us to monitor (the trial).… We understand if the matter is pending for years & the accused are prejudiced. This trial is yet to start, we’re not going to get into it. It’s a very good piece of essay, not a writ petition,” the bench said.

“Something which is yet to commence and it would fail, and that is why we should monitor. What is this? It’s (that the trial will be delayed) an apprehension as of today… A trial which has not yet started cannot be said to have a delayed trial,” it added.

The court asked the petitioner’s counsel whether it should dismiss the plea with a detailed judgment or allow it to be withdrawn. With the writing on the wall, the former MLA’s counsel requested permission to withdraw the petition, which the court granted.

The November 10 explosion, carried out using an improvised explosive device fitted into a stolen vehicle, was among the deadliest attacks in the capital in recent years, killing at least 12 people.