The Supreme Court today appointed two amicus curiae on appeals of four condemned convicts in the December 16 gangrape and murder case against the Delhi High Court order upholding their death sentence.
A bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra appointed senior advocates Raju Ramachandran and Sanjay Hegde as amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter.
While Ramachandran would assist the court in appeals of the convicts --Mukesh and Pawan, Hegde would appear for convicts Vinay and Akshay in the case.
"We must express our concern in the matter. We feel the gravity in the whole issue. Sometimes there are many perceptions and we don't want to miss anything. We would like to be assisted by the amicus curiae in the matter. We appoint two senior counsels Raju Ramachandran and Sanjay Hegde as amicus in the case," the bench, also comprising Justice V Gopala Gowda and Kurian Joseph, said.
The matter is listed for next hearing on July 18.
On April 4, the court had commenced arguments on the plea of Mukesh and Pawan.
Besides Mukesh and Pawan, the other two convicts, Vinay Sharma and Akshay Kumar Singh, had approached the apex court against the Delhi High Court's March 13, 2014 verdict, which had termed that their offence fell in the rarest of rare category and upheld the death sentence awarded to them by the trial court.
A 23-year-old paramedic was brutally assaulted and gangraped by six persons in a moving bus in South Delhi and thrown out of the vehicle with her male friend on the night of December 16, 2012. She had died in a Singapore hospital on December 29.
The prime accused, Ram Singh, had been found dead in a cell in Tihar Jail in March 2013 and proceedings against him were abated.
On August 31, 2013, another accused, a juvenile at the time of the crime, was convicted and sentenced to three years in a reformation home. He was released from observation home in December last year.
The apex court had earlier appointed Nariman as amicus
curiae (friend of the court), while framing some legal questions with regard to freedom of speech and expression and probable impact of statements of those holding high offices on free and fair probe in heinous cases like this.
The court had also noted the apprehensions of the victim family, represented by lawyer Kislay Pandey, that there was no possibility of a "fair investigation" in Uttar Pradesh in view of the fact that a Minister has allegedly made a public statement that it was a "political conspiracy".
Framing the questions for its adjudication, the bench had said "when a victim files an FIR alleging rape/gangrape/murder or such other heinous offences against a person or a group of persons, whether any individual, holding a high office or who is in authority, should make a comment on the crime that it was an outcome of political conspiracy, moreover when he has nothing to do with the offence."
It had said whether the state, which is "the protector of citizens", should allow these comments which can have an effect or "may create distrust" with regard to fair investigation in such cases.
The court, while framing another question, said it would examine whether such statements are covered under the freedom of speech and expression of an individual. It said the statements, which are not given for self protection, comply with the concept of "constitutional sensitivities".
The man, whose wife and daughter were gangraped last month on a highway in Bulandshahr, had on August 13 moved the apex court seeking transfer of the case to Delhi, besides lodging of an FIR against Khan as well as several policemen.
The Allahabad High Court had ordered CBI probe into the incident besides deciding to monitor the investigation.
In the plea filed in the apex court, the victim's father sought an order for transferring the trial of the case to Delhi "in the interest of justice".
Unhappy with the UP police, the petitioner said the probe should be conducted by "some other competent agency".
