New Delhi: The Supreme Court has imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on a petitioner who moved the court alleging that a mistrial happened in the M.K. Gandhi assassination case, and wanted the Bombay Public Measures (Delhi Amendment) Act of 1948 applied in the case be declared “ultra vires”.The petitioner, Dr. Pankaj Phadnis, president of the Abhinav Bharat Congress, also petitioned the court to issue directions to the Union government to form a committee comprising eminent persons to draw up an overseas scholarship scheme for meritorious students to undertake postgraduate studies as envisaged by V.D. Savarkar in 1944 in “partial atonement of injustice” done to Savarkar.“The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold that the Bombay Public Measures (Delhi Amendment) Act, Act 52 of 1948 is ultra vires of the Constitution of India and its application in REX vs. Nathuram Godse resulted in a mistrial,” the petitioner urged the court, according to Bar and Bench.Dismissing the petition, a two-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah told the petitioner that parties cannot walk into the apex court with any kind of prayer.“It is the most misconceived petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India … Since it is a party in person, we are still showing some concession,” the court said, adding that the petitioner deposit Rs 25,000 with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Welfare Fund within four weeks.According to the Times of India, Phadnis had said that a “mistrial” led to the implication of Savarkar in Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination case and that it was a “conspiracy” to end his political career. Savarkar was actually acquitted for lack of evidence in the case.Phadnis argued that the law under which Savarkar was tried – the Bombay Public Measures (Delhi Amendment) Act of 1948 – was “illegal”.“Savarkar was implicated in the Gandhi murder trial solely on the evidence given by an accused, Digambar Badge, an approver who was pardoned on June 21, 1948, by the trial court. However, the court acquired the power to grant pardon only on account of the Bombay Public Security Measures (Delhi Amendment Act) Act, Act 52 of 1948, which amended Section 13 of the Bombay Act 6 of 1947 as extended to the Province of Delhi on an ex post facto basis. Such ex post facto laws in criminal jurisprudence squarely fall foul of Section 20 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of India. Such powers are to be found only in a Monarchical form of Government e.g. United Kingdom. The impugned Act is therefore the subject matter of challenge,” Phadnis’s petition said.The petitioner also claimed that a conspiracy was hatched at that time to tarnish the image of Savarkar, so that he could be eliminated from being a contender to become the prime minister of India.“This granted ex post facto powers to a special judge to grant pardon to an accused, which was used by the respondent to falsely implicate Savarkar in the Gandhi murder trial and eliminate him as a contender for being Prime Minister in independent India,” the petitioner claimed.“The mala fide motive in prosecuting Veer Savarkar came to light when he was acquitted as prosecutors failed to produce any evidence to corroborate the flimsy evidence given by the approver. Even after acquittal, Savarkar was arrested again in 1949 and released only after he agreed not to participate in the 1952 elections. He died in 1966 without ever having participated in elections,” the petitioner added.According to Phadnis, Savarkar, Dr. D.S. Parchure, and Narayan D Apte, accused in the case, were “victims of mistrial”. Apte was hanged for his role in the assassination, but Phadnis claimed that it was a “case of custodial murder by Dominion of India”. He demanded that the state issue a public apology to the family members of Apte.
