Nitish Katara murder case: SC issues contempt notice to Home Secy for not deciding on Pehalwan’s remission
Noting that its orders were not followed unless drastic measures were taken, the Supreme Court on Monday issued a contempt of court notice to Delhi Principal Secretary (Home) for not deciding the remission plea of Sukhdev Pehalwan, a convict in the 2002 Nitish Katara murder case.
“We believe that unless a contempt notice is issued, our orders are not complied with,” a Bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka said, asking the Principal Secretary (Home) to respond to the contempt of court notice by March 28.
“A solemn statement on instructions of the state government was recorded in the order. Now, we are informed that the SRB (sentence review board) is to consider the case of the petitioner today. The state (Delhi) government has not shown even the elementary courtesy of even making an application for grant of extension of time,” said the Bench, which also included Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
“We, therefore, issue a notice to the Principal Secretary of the Home Department of the Delhi government calling upon him to show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, should not be initiated against him,” it said, directing him to remain present through video conferencing on the next date of hearing.
The order came after the Bench found that despite an undertaking given to it, the Delhi Government failed to take a call on the grant of remission to convict Sukhdev Yadav, alias Pehalwan, who was awarded a 20-year jail term without remission in the case.
“Is there a rule with the Delhi government that whenever the Supreme Court passes an order to decide a case, it will not be decided within the time? We will issue a notice of contempt to you. Unless there is a threat of contempt, you will never decide a case…We can find at least two dozen orders having similar issues,” Justice Oka said, expressing strong displeasure over the inordinate delay.
On March 3, the top court had asked the Delhi Government to take a call in two weeks on the remission plea of Sukhdev Yadav, alias Pehalwan, who is serving a 20-year jail term without remission in the 2002 Nitish Katara murder case.
“After all, the issue pertains to liberty of a person,” the Bench had said seeking to know how the convict, whose 20 years jail term was scheduled to end on March 10, 2025, would continue to remain in prison.
“You should have started the process of granting the remission a long time back. How can he be kept in jail after the period of sentence is over?” Justice Oka had wondered.
On February 24, it had questioned the Delhi government’s submission that it would not release Pehalwan even after the completion of his actual 20-year jail term in the case.
“Life imprisonment shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission, and fine of Rs 10,000,” read the HC judgment.
The Delhi Government maintained that even after the completion of 20 years of actual imprisonment, it wouldn’t be releasing the convict.
The top court had ordered the Delhi Home Secretary to file an affidavit clearly stating if after completing 20 years of actual sentence, Pehalwan should be released or not. It had asked the Delhi Government counsel to spell out if the state was reading court verdicts this way.
Pehalwan has challenged a November 2024 order of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed his petition for releasing him on furlough for three weeks.
On October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court awarded a 25-year jail term without the benefit of remission to Vikas Yadav and his cousin Vishal for their role in the sensational kidnapping and killing of Katara. Co-convict Sukhdev Yadav, alias Pehalwan, was given a 20-year jail term in the case.
They were convicted and sentenced for kidnapping Katara from a marriage party on the intervening night of February 16-17, 2002, and then killing him for his alleged affair with Vikas’ sister Bharti, daughter of Uttar Pradesh politician DP Yadav. Katara was murdered as Vishal and Vikas Yadav did not approve of his affair with Bharti as they were from different castes, the trial court said.
