Supreme Court Notice in Red Fort Attack Death Penalty Case Curative Plea

The Supreme Court of India has taken a rare procedural step in one of the country’s most high-profile terrorism prosecutions. On January 22, 2026, a Constitutionally significant bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice J.K. Maheshwari issued notice on a curative petition filed by Lashkar-e-Taiba operative Mohammad Arif, who is on death row for the 2000 Red Fort terrorist attack.

The notice was issued on Arif’s challenge to a November 2022 order of the Supreme Court that had upheld his conviction and confirmed the death sentence. By granting notice at the curative stage, the Court has indicated that it may re-examine aspects of its earlier decision in the Red Fort attack death penalty case, a development that has drawn attention across the legal and national security establishment.

A curative petition represents the final judicial remedy available within the Supreme Court’s own framework. Such petitions are entertained only in exceptional circumstances, after the dismissal of both the appeal and the review petition. The decision to issue notice, therefore, stands out for its procedural rarity and symbolic weight.

What the Court Ordered on January 22

According to reports, the three-judge bench agreed to issue notice on the curative plea, thereby formally calling for a response from the opposing side. While the Court did not stay the execution or pass any interim order at this stage, the issuance of notice itself signals that the plea has crossed the first and most restrictive threshold of curative scrutiny.

Curative petitions are typically circulated in chambers and dismissed without oral hearing unless the bench is satisfied that a gross miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The Court’s decision to issue notice suggests that the judges found sufficient grounds to seek further clarification before taking a final call.

At this stage, the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The proceedings remain limited to examining whether the earlier judgment in the Red Fort attack death penalty case suffers from fundamental procedural or constitutional infirmities.

The Red Fort Attack and the Original Conviction

The case arises from the terrorist attack on the historic Red Fort in Delhi on December 22, 2000. Armed militants affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba entered the Red Fort complex and opened fire, killing three personnel of the Indian Army. The attack occurred at a time of heightened security concerns and was seen as a direct assault on a national symbol and a military installation.

Mohammad Arif, a Pakistani national, was arrested in connection with the attack and prosecuted under provisions of criminal law and anti-terror legislation then in force. The trial court convicted Arif and sentenced him to death, a decision that was subsequently affirmed by higher courts.

Over the years, the Red Fort attack death penalty case has passed through multiple layers of judicial scrutiny, including appeals and review proceedings before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s 2022 Verdict Upholding Death Sentence

In November 2022, the Supreme Court upheld Mohammad Arif’s conviction and death sentence. The Court concluded that the attack fell within the category of the “rarest of rare” cases, warranting capital punishment. The judgment emphasised the nature of the offence, the deliberate targeting of Army personnel, and the broader implications for national security.

The 2022 ruling marked the culmination of the ordinary appellate and review process. With the dismissal of the review petition, Arif’s legal options were narrowed to the filing of a curative petition, a remedy the Supreme Court itself has described as extraordinary and to be used sparingly.

Understanding a Curative Petition

The curative petition mechanism was evolved by the Supreme Court to prevent miscarriage of justice in cases where even the review process has failed to address grave errors. It is not an appeal on merits but a limited procedural safeguard.

A curative plea is considered only if the petitioner can demonstrate that there was a violation of principles of natural justice or that the judges deciding the case failed to consider binding precedent. Additionally, it must be shown that the earlier judgment resulted in grave injustice.

In practice, most curative petitions are dismissed at the threshold. Notices are seldom issued, especially in criminal cases involving terrorism and death sentences. Against this backdrop, the Court’s order in the Red Fort attack death penalty case assumes particular significance.

Grounds Raised in the Curative Plea

While the detailed contents of Mohammad Arif’s curative petition are not fully in the public domain, it is understood that the plea challenges the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision on constitutional and procedural grounds. Such challenges typically relate to alleged errors in appreciation of evidence, sentencing principles, or compliance with due process standards.

The curative plea does not reopen the entire trial but seeks to persuade the Court that its earlier verdict warrants reconsideration to prevent irreversible injustice. By issuing notice, the Court has kept the door open to hearing these contentions before arriving at a final determination.

Bench Composition and Its Significance

The curative petition is being considered by a bench led by CJI Surya Kant, along with Justices Vikram Nath and J.K. Maheshwari. As per established practice, curative petitions are ordinarily placed before the senior-most judges and, where possible, judges who were part of the earlier decision.

The presence of the Chief Justice underscores the institutional importance attached to the matter. It also reflects the Supreme Court’s cautious approach when dealing with final remedies in death penalty cases, particularly those arising from acts of terrorism.

What Issuance of Notice Means Procedurally

Issuing notice at the curative stage does not imply that the Court has found fault with its earlier judgment. It indicates only that the petition merits further examination rather than summary dismissal.

The next steps typically involve the filing of responses by the prosecution and the listing of the matter for further consideration. The Court may decide the petition in chambers or, if it deems necessary, hear limited oral arguments.

In the Red Fort attack death penalty case, the notice signals that the judicial process is still open at its narrowest margin, reflecting the gravity with which capital punishment cases are treated within the constitutional framework.

The Broader Context of Death Penalty Review

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that death penalty cases demand the highest level of judicial scrutiny. Over the years, the Court has evolved detailed guidelines on sentencing, mitigating circumstances, and procedural safeguards.

In terrorism-related cases, the tension between national security concerns and constitutional guarantees has been a recurring theme. The Red Fort attack death penalty case sits squarely within this complex intersection, combining issues of violent extremism, state security, and individual rights.

The issuance of notice in a curative petition does not dilute the seriousness of the offence but reflects the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that even the most severe punishments are imposed only after exhaustive procedural compliance.

What Lies Ahead

For now, the Supreme Court has not indicated a timeline for further proceedings. The matter remains pending, with the issuance of notice marking only the first step in the curative process.

Whether the Court ultimately upholds its 2022 verdict or finds reason to revisit any aspect of the Red Fort attack death penalty case will depend on the arguments placed before it and the limited grounds permissible at the curative stage.

What is clear is that the Court has chosen caution over closure, reaffirming that in cases involving the irreversible penalty of death, the threshold for finality is matched by an equally strong insistence on fairness.