“We have gone through the Curative Petition and the connected documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this court in Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra”, mentioned a bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices S Ok Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer, rejecting the plea by ‘Roots in Kashmir’.

It was within the Hurra case that the SC developed the idea of Curative Petition to offer a possibility for these whose grievance was not addressed within the assessment petition to method the courtroom once more.

The SC dismissed the primary petition in July 2017 saying 27 years had handed for the reason that occasions unfolded within the Kashmir Valley and proof “is unlikely to be available”. In October 2017, the highest courtroom rejected the petition searching for assessment of its earlier order.

Subsequently, Roots in Kashmir filed the Curative Petition contending that the SC was “not justified in dismissing the writ petition at the admission stage merely on presumption” of proof being unavailable because of passage of time, and mentioned “this amounts to failure of justice or gross miscarriage of justice…in view of the fact that…” the Court has entertained and handed needed path for trial in circumstances the place the incident pertains to much more than 30-32 years.

It highlighted that, within the case of the 1984 anti-Sikhs riots, the courtroom had taken cognisance even after a lapse of over 33 years.

The petition mentioned the Delhi High Court had within the case of Sajjan Kumar mentioned it “is of the view that the mass killings of Sikhs in Delhi and elsewhere in November 1983 were in fact ‘crimes against humanity’. They will continue to shock the collective conscience of the society for a long time. While it is undeniable that it has taken over three decades to bring the accused in this case to justice, and that our criminal justice system stands tested in that process, it is essential, in a democracy governed by the Rule of Law, to be able to call out those responsible for such mass crimes. It is important to assure those countless victims waiting patiently that despite the challenges, truth will prevail and justice will be done”.

The SC ruling dismissing its petition and assessment can also be “contrary” to what the SC had mentioned within the 2007 determination in Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty that “a crime never dies”, the plea claimed. It added that the SC “completely failed to appreciate that over 700 Kashmiri Pandits were murdered between 1989 and 1998 and FIRs were lodged in over 200 cases, but not even a single FIR has reached to the stage of filing of chargesheet or conviction”.