Today, On 17th March, The Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to an official for failing to decide on the remission plea of a convict in the Nitish Katara murder case. The bench expressed displeasure over the inaction, emphasizing the need for timely decisions in legal matters. The case involves the brutal 2002 murder of Katara, which was classified as an honor killing. The Court has sought an explanation for the delay, stressing accountability in handling remission applications.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to the principal secretary of the Delhi government’s home department for failing to decide on the remission plea of a convict in the 2002 Nitish Katara murder case, emphasizing that its orders were not being followed without taking drastic measures.
A bench consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan stated,
“We believe that unless a contempt notice is issued, our orders are not complied with,”
After the Delhi government did not make a decision regarding the remission for convict Sukhdev Yadav, also known as Pehalwan, who is serving a 20-year sentence without remission.
Referring to a prior order, the bench noted,
“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 government has not shown even the elementary courtesy of making an application for an extension of time.”
The bench added,
“We therefore issue 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. Notice of contempt is returnable on March 28.”
The official was instructed to appear via video conferencing at the next hearing.
On March 3, the Delhi government had informed the bench that it would make a decision regarding the convict’s remission within two weeks. During the hearing, additional solicitor general Archana Pathak Dave, representing the Delhi government, mentioned that a meeting of the SRB was scheduled for that day and requested more time for a decision on the remission.
Justice Oka remarked,
“We have observed that the Delhi government consistently fails to make decisions without requesting an extension of time… This pattern is evident in every case. Previously, there was the excuse that the chief minister was unavailable,”
When the law officer continued to seek more time, Justice Oka responded,
“You don’t even have the courtesy to apply for an extension of time.”
The bench noted the government’s prior commitment to reach a decision within two weeks but pointed out that it had learned the SRB had not considered the matter.
Also Read: 2002 Nitish Katara Murder Case| Delhi HC to Hear Vikas Yadav’s Furlough Plea on January 8
The government mentioned the Delhi High Court’s direction regarding the need to hear the complainant, Neelam Katara, the mother of the deceased victim, during the hearing of the convict’s remission plea.
The bench questioned,
“Is there a rule in the Delhi government that whenever the Supreme Court orders a decision, it will not be made on time?”
Justice Oka added,
“Unless there is a threat of contempt, you will never resolve a case.”
After being informed that the SRB was meeting that day, Justice Oka said,
“Now it will go to the chief minister and then to the Governor. Please tell us who is in charge of this department. We will issue a contempt notice.”
In issuing the contempt notice, the bench emphasized that it did not compel the government to provide a statement regarding the decision on the remission plea.
The bench previously inquired how the convict, whose 20-year prison term is set to end on March 10, 2025, would remain incarcerated.
The bench stated,
“After all, the issue pertains to the liberty of a person,”
Justice Oka remarked that the process for granting remission should have begun much earlier.
He asked,
“How can he be kept in jail after the sentence period is over?”
The bench acknowledged submissions from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and noted that the remission issue would be reviewed within two weeks. On February 24, the bench questioned the Delhi government’s claim that it would not release Pehalwan even after he completed his 20 years of actual imprisonment.
Upon reviewing its judgment, which stated,
“Life imprisonment shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission, and a fine of Rs 10,000,”
The top court ordered the secretary of the Delhi government’s home department to file a sworn statement regarding whether the petitioner should be released after serving 20 years. The bench also asked the government’s counsel if the state was interpreting court verdicts in this manner.
Yadav’s plea challenged a November 2024 order from the Delhi High Court, which denied his request for a three-week furlough. On October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court sentenced Vikas Yadav and his cousin Vishal to 25 years in prison without the possibility of remission for their roles in the highly publicized kidnapping and murder of Nitish Katara. Co-convict Sukhdev Yadav, also known as Pehalwan, received a 20-year sentence in the same case.
They were convicted for kidnapping Katara from a wedding party on the night of February 16-17, 2002, and subsequently murdering him due to his alleged relationship with Vikas’ sister, Bharti Yadav, the daughter of Uttar Pradesh politician D.P. Yadav.
The trial court found that Katara was killed because Vishal and Vikas Yadav disapproved of his relationship with Bharti, as they belonged to different castes.
Case Title: Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of NCT of Delhi