The Supreme Court on Thursday reopened the final procedural door in the Red Fort terror attack case, seeking a response from the Delhi government on a curative petition filed by Lashkar-e-Taiba operative and Pakistani national Mohd Arif, who is facing the death penalty for the 2000 attack that claimed the lives of three Indian Army personnel.
A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Vikram Nath and J.K. Maheshwari, took up the curative plea in open court and issued formal notice to the Delhi government.
The petition marks Arif’s last legal attempt to overturn the capital punishment confirmed against him after a long judicial journey that has spanned more than two decades.
In November 2022, a three-judge Bench headed by then Chief Justice U.U. Lalit had rejected Arif’s review petition, concluding that the gravity of the offence far outweighed any mitigating factors. The Court had underlined that the attack amounted to waging war against the nation and involved the targeted killing of uniformed Army personnel.
The case dates back to the night of December 22, 2000, when armed intruders entered the Red Fort complex in New Delhi, where soldiers of the 7 Rajputana Rifles were stationed. Gunfire erupted inside the historic fort, leaving three jawans dead. The attackers escaped by scaling the rear boundary wall.
Arif was later apprehended and prosecuted under multiple statutes, including the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, Foreigners Act and Explosive Substances Act. A Delhi sessions court sentenced him to death on October 31, 2005. The verdict was upheld by the Delhi High Court in 2007 and later confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2011.
Subsequent challenges focused on the composition of the Bench that confirmed the death sentence. Arif argued that his appeal should have been heard by a three-judge Bench rather than a two-judge one. Although his earlier review and curative pleas were dismissed, the legal landscape shifted in 2014 when a Constitution Bench ruled that all death sentence confirmation cases must be decided by at least three judges.
Relying on that ruling, Arif sought another review, which was eventually heard by the three-judge Bench led by then CJI Lalit. During those proceedings, he questioned the reliance on call data records, arguing they were improperly admitted. The Court, however, found that the broader body of evidence left no room for doubt about his involvement.
The Bench also rejected the claim that mitigating circumstances had been overlooked, noting the nature of the offence, Arif’s role as a foreign national engaged in terrorism, and the killing of Army personnel.
That judgment is now under challenge through the present curative petition, on which the Supreme Court has sought the Delhi government’s response.
