In Focus: High Courts Tackle Riot Conviction Evidence, Parliamentary Privileges, and State Land Policies

A series of significant orders and proceedings across India's High Courts this week have put a spotlight on fundamental legal principles, from the stringent standards of evidence required for criminal conviction to the complex interplay between state policy and central legislation. The Gujarat High Court acquitted three men in a two-decade-old riot case, citing evidentiary failures. Concurrently, the Delhi High Court is deliberating the logistical and financial conditions of a jailed Member of Parliament's attendance, while the Punjab and Haryana High Court scrutinizes a state land acquisition policy.

---

Gujarat High Court Acquits Three in 2002 Riots Case, Citing Lack of 'Reliable Evidence'

Nearly two decades after a fast-track court in Anand delivered its verdict, the Gujarat High Court has acquitted three men convicted in connection with the 2002 post-Godhra riots. The judgment, delivered by a single-judge bench of Justice Gita Gopi, overturns the May 29, 2006, conviction and five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence handed to Sachin Patel, Ashok Patel, and Ashok Gupta.

The acquittal underscores the critical importance of robust and corroborative evidence in criminal law, particularly in cases involving mob violence where individual identification is paramount. In its order, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to meet this fundamental burden of proof.

Background of the Case and Trial Court Conviction

The case stems from an incident of arson and rioting in Anand district that occurred on February 28, 2002, a day after the Sabarmati Express train burning at Godhra station. The prosecution alleged that the three appellants were part of an unlawful assembly that defied a prohibitory order, issued under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and proceeded to damage and set fire to shops.

Of the nine individuals who stood trial before the fast-track court, four were convicted for offenses under the Indian Penal Code, including rioting, arson, and unlawful assembly. One of the four convicted individuals passed away in 2009 while the appeal was pending, leaving the three current appellants to pursue the legal challenge.

High Court's Rationale: A Failure of Proof

The appellate review by Justice Gopi focused intensely on the quality of evidence presented at trial. The High Court found the lower court's decision to be flawed, stating,

"The learned trial court judge had erred in the appreciation of the evidence. Conviction is not based on reliable and corroborative evidence. The identification of the accused has not been proved during the trial."

This observation goes to the heart of the prosecution's case. The High Court specifically noted two critical failures:

1. Failure to Prove Membership in Unlawful Assembly: The prosecution could not definitively establish that the appellants were part of the mob in question.

2. Failure to Prove Acts in Furtherance of a Common Object: Even if their presence was assumed, there was a lack of evidence proving their individual participation in the alleged acts of arson and vandalism. The court stated,

" None of their acts in prosecution of the common object, of setting things on fire and damaging the private and public property, has been proved during the trial."

This acquittal after 19 years of conviction highlights the rigorous standards appellate courts apply when reviewing criminal convictions, emphasizing that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for legally admissible and reliable proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

Delhi High Court Weighs Plea of Jailed MP Engineer Rashid on Parliament Attendance Costs

In a case testing the intersection of parliamentary duties and custodial conditions, the Delhi High Court is examining a plea by jailed Lok Sabha MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh, known as Engineer Rashid. Rashid, an Independent MP from Jammu and Kashmir, is challenging a trial court condition that requires him to personally bear the substantial costs associated with his travel and security escort to attend the ongoing Monsoon session of Parliament.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) special court had granted Rashid permission to attend the session in custody from July 24 to August 4. However, it imposed a condition that he pay the expenses, which authorities calculated at ₹1.44 lakh per day, totaling approximately ₹17 lakh for the period. Rashid argues this financial burden effectively hinders his ability to perform his duties as a publicly elected representative.

The NIA, which arrested Rashid in 2019 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in a terror funding case, has strongly opposed the waiver. In a 17-page affidavit, the agency contended that public duty does not create an exemption from bearing such costs and that “The imposition of the conditions to impose special cost is reasonable and just.”

The matter took a procedural turn when a division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Mini Pushkarna expressed its inclination to transfer the plea to the same bench that had previously heard a similar request from Rashid during the Budget session. The court remarked, “It would be wrong on our part to hear the matter, when a bench has already taken a call on a similar issue,” highlighting the judicial principle of consistency. The case is set to be heard again on July 31.

---

Punjab's Land Pooling Policy Challenged for Circumventing Central Acquisition Law

The Punjab and Haryana High Court is hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the legality of the Punjab government's land pooling policy, which aims to acquire large tracts of land for development. The petitioners argue that the state's policy is a mechanism to bypass the stringent, pro-farmer safeguards mandated by the central Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act).

The petitioners contend that the policy is being used to acquire fertile agricultural land without adhering to crucial procedures laid down in the LARR Act. These include conducting a mandatory Social Impact Assessment (Section 4) and an Environmental Impact Assessment. They further pointed to Section 10 of the LARR Act, which explicitly bars the acquisition of multi-cropped, fertile agricultural land except as a last resort under exceptional circumstances.

During the hearing before a division bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, counsel for the Punjab government argued that the land pooling was being conducted under a separate state policy from 2025, not the LARR Act. The bench advised the petitioners to amend their plea to specifically challenge the 2025 policy. The matter has been adjourned to August 19, setting the stage for a significant legal battle over the supremacy of central legislation and the scope of state policy-making in land acquisition.