New Delhi: In a significant procedural development regarding capital punishment cases, the Supreme Court on Thursday issued a notice on the Curative Petition filed by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) militant Mohammad Arif (alias Ashfaq). Arif is facing the death penalty for masterminding the brazen terror attack on the Red Fort in December 2000.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice J.K. Maheshwari, agreed to examine the plea, which challenges the Court’s November 2022 judgment that had dismissed his review petition and affirmed the death sentence.

The case dates back to December 22, 2000, when intruders stormed the Red Fort in Delhi, opening indiscriminate fire that killed three jawans of the 7th Rajputana Rifles. Arif, a Pakistani national, was arrested days later.

His legal journey has been exhaustive:

2005: Convicted and sentenced to death by the Trial Court.
2007: Delhi High Court confirms the sentence.
2011: Supreme Court dismisses his appeal and his first review petition.
2014: A Constitution Bench (Md. Arif v. Registrar) rules that review petitions in death penalty cases must be heard in open court. This gave Arif a second shot at a review.
2022: The Supreme Court re-hears and dismisses his review petition, holding that the attack on India's sovereignty outweighed any mitigating factors.

A Curative Petition is the final legal remedy available to a convict after the dismissal of a review petition. It is evolved from the landmark Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment to prevent "gross miscarriage of justice." It is rarely admitted for hearing.

Arif’s current plea argues procedural lapses, specifically the admission of Call Detail Records (CDRs) without the mandatory Section 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act. While the 2022 judgment acknowledged this lapse and excluded the CDRs, it held that the remaining evidence was sufficient to prove guilt "beyond any doubt."

The issuance of notice in a Curative Petition is a rare judicial event. It indicates that the Supreme Court is willing to take one last, meticulous look at the death sentence to ensure that no procedural error has infringed upon the convict's Article 21 rights. For the victims' families, this prolongs the wait for finality; for legal scholars, it reinforces the principle that the death penalty—being irreversible—demands the highest standard of due process, even for foreign militants convicted of waging war against the state.