Dr. Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis v. Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice
Background
Nearly 70 years after Mahatma Gandhi's assassination in 1948, for which Nathuram Godse and others were tried, convicted, and (in Godse's case) executed, with the conviction upheld on appeal by the Punjab High Court in 1949, the petitioner, describing himself as an engineer, management graduate, and researcher, approached the Delhi High Court in 2016 seeking to reopen the case. He argued that a "fourth bullet" may have been fired (suggesting a second, unidentified assailant) and that the 1969 Kapur Commission's findings implicating V.D. Savarkar's group in the conspiracy should be reviewed or a new commission set up. The High Court declined to entertain the petition, and the petitioner's special leave petition came before the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court, with the assistance of a court-appointed Amicus Curiae who examined the trial record and museum exhibits, held that the evidence of six eyewitnesses, the inquest report, and physical evidence (two spent bullets and a third found later, consistent with three cartridge cases) all supported only three shots being fired, with no basis for the petitioner's "fourth bullet"/second-assailant theory. On the Kapur Commission, the Court held that a commission of inquiry's findings are purely recommendatory, have no binding legal force, and cannot overturn a criminal court's acquittal (Savarkar had been acquitted at trial), so there was no legal basis to disturb or review the Commission's report. The Court held that long-concluded criminal convictions, especially where the convicted persons have since died or completed their sentences, should not be reopened based on later academic research or speculation, and that courts should not allow their jurisdiction to be used to reignite settled historical controversies. Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed it.
Lesson Learnt
Courts will not reopen a criminal case that was finally decided decades ago merely because someone raises new research, speculation, or a differing historical interpretation, and the findings of a government commission of inquiry (such as the Kapur Commission) are only recommendatory and have no power to overturn a court's judgment, including an acquittal.