What’s Abu Salem’s instance?
According to the Supreme Court, the Centre must release gangster Abu Salem after he has served 25 years in prison, according to the sovereign guarantee provided by India to Portugal, from where he was extradited.
An overview of the ruling and its background.
In accordance with the monarch undertaking given by the Government of India to Portugal from where he was extradited, the Supreme Court ruled that the central government must advise the President to use his powers of remission to free gangster and 1993 Bombay serial blasts criminal Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari after he has served 25 years in prison.
The first occurence tangled the murder of Pradeep Jain on March 7, 1995, for non-payment of some money.
The charges against him were based on different sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, and the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA).
Salem’s involvement in the Bombay blasts was the 2nd case.
From a godown in Gujarat to Mumbai, Salem allegedly transported illegally smuggled AK-56 rifles, hand grenades, and boxes of magazines in a Maruti van with secret compartments.
The conspiratorial meetings leading up to the blasts are said to have led to all this. He then left Mumbai and entered Portugal using a Pakistani passport under a presumed name.
On October 15, 1993, he was declared a proclaimed offender by a designated TADA court in Mumbai. A warrant was issued against him later that was not bailable. In addition, Interpol issued him a Red Corner notice on September 18, 2002.
In nine criminal cases, the Government of India, through the then Minister of State for External Affairs, Omar Abdullah, requested Salem’s extradition to Portugal based on the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and on assurance of reciprocity.
On December 17, 2002, the then Deputy Prime Minister, L K Advani, gave a solemn sovereign assurance that if Salem is extradited by Portugal for trial in India, he would not face the death penalty or imprisonment longer than 25 years.
On May 25, 2003, the Indian Ambassador in Lisbon gave another solemn assurance that if Salem is extradited, he will not be prosecuted for any offense other than those for which extradition is sought, nor will he be extradited to any third country.
His extradition was approved by Portugal’s Ministry of Justice on March 28, 2003, but only for some of the offenses in the GOI’s request. Despite Salem’s challenge, the Court of Appeal in Lisbon allowed his extradition for all offenses except those punishable by death or life imprisonment.
Due to the assurance given by GOI that Salem would not receive the death penalty or imprisonment beyond 25 years, the Supreme Court of Portugal confirmed the Court of Appeal’s order on January 27.
In November 2005, Salem was extradited to India from Portugal, arrested on November 24, and tried for the offenses he had been charged with.
In a written petition, Salem alleged that conditions of extradition had been violated. In addition, he appealed to the Lisbon Court of Appeal, which deferred proceedings until the Supreme Court ruled on his appeal.
According to the SC’s order dated September 10, 2010, Portugal had not included certain offenses for which the appellant had been charged by the designated Court in Mumbai.
As well as the offences for which Salem was extradited, he may still be charged with lesser offenses. According to the SC, there was no violation of the sovereign assurance.
Based on the SC’s findings, the Lisbon court concluded that there had been a violation, and the extradition authorization should be removed.
The GOI appealed, but the Supreme Court of Portugal and its Constitutional Court rejected the appeal, so Salem’s extradition was cancelled.
Following that, the CBI applied to the Supreme Court of India for advancement of the September 10, 2010 order and for permission to withdraw certain charges against Salem.
As per the bureau, the Government of India was pursuing diplomatic talks with Salem in the interest of the comity of courts and a united fight against global terrorism, and some of the extra charges encased against Salem may hinder such negotiations. As a result of the SCI’s ruling, the CBI application was approved, and the add on charges were withdrawn.
There were two appeals filed by Salem before the Court, one was related to his charge of murdering Pradeep Jain and the other was related to the life sentence he was sentenced to following his conviction in the Bombay blasts case.
There will be no issue of honouring the period of 25 years mentioned in the assurance until the period of 25 years expires, i.e., on 10.11.2030, and that the government would observe by the period of 25 years at a suitable time subject to remedies if any are available and such an argument cannot be raised before the period expires.
According to S K Kaul and M M Sundresh’s bench, due to the grievousness of Salem’s offense, there is no question of this Court exercising any special privileges to commute or reduce Salem’s sentence.
In keeping with the assurances given to Portugal, the Central Government must advise the President of India on the exercise of his powers under Article 72 of the Constitution and to release the appellant in accordance with the national commitment and the principle of comity of courts.
Moreover, the Court denied Salem’s request that the time he spent in jail in Portugal from September 18, 2002, when he was arrested following a Red Corner Notice, to December 10, 2005, when he was handed over to Indian authorities, be set off from the remainder of his sentence in India.
It was noted that he was convicted in Portugal for entering the country with a fake passport and that such setting off can only occur within India for an offense and not abroad.
Whenever reference is made to an adjustment of periods in a set-off, the reference is to proceedings within the country, the Court said. It is not possible to apply the criminal laws of the land extraterritorial. For the purposes of the proceedings in this country, what happens in another country for another trial or some other detention is not relevant.
We are not able to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the formal arrest of the appellant under the Red Corner notice on 18.09.2002 should be taken into consideration for serving a sentence in the present case or that the relevant date should be 28.03.2003 when the extradition process began. We can only draw a conclusion from what we had said if we took the date on 12.10.2005 when he was given a conditional release.
Accordingly, from the perspective of detention in India, the period begins only after he was detained in Portugal on 12.10.2005, although he enjoys a little more than one month’s benefit… Based on the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the appellant is in detention beginning on 12.10.2005″.
What made Iran arrest three award-winning filmmakers
Jafar Panahi, Mohammad Rasoulof, and Mostafa Aleahmad: who are they, and why were they arrested in Iran? International reactions: what have they been? In its latest crackdown on dissenters, the Islamic Republic of Iran arrested three film directors, Jafar Panahi, Mohammad Rasoulof, and Mostafa Aleahmad.
After protests over the collapse of the Abadan building, Rasoulof, a Berlinale awardee, and colleague Aleahmad were arrested for posting a statement to social media urging Iranian security forces to lay down their weapons.
In addition to Rasoulof, Panahi was also charged by security forces for the reason he went to the Tehran prosecutor’s office on Monday evening. Jafar Panahi is an important figure in the second half of Iranian new wave cinema, making films about social issues that criticize the Iranian state region.
In spite of making films within Iranian censorship, the director later deviated from the style to make films like The Circle (2000) and Offside (2006). In The Circle, Panahi portrays women’s lives in Iran’s patriarchal society and won the Venice Golden Lion.
In 2011, both Panahi and Rasoulof were arrested for filming without a permit. For making propaganda against the regime, the duo was sentenced to six years in prison and banned from making films for 20 years. In contrast to Rasoulof, Panahi’s sentence was never enforced, and he continued to make underground films while under house arrest, without government approval or permits.
There has been a great deal of acclaim for the films by Panahi abroad. Panahi has won multiple festival awards for his post-exile films, including the 2015 Berlin Golden Bear for Taxi, a film about poverty, sexism, and censorship in Iran.
A critically acclaimed independent film director, Mohammad Rasoulof is also known for his activism off-screen. At the Berlin Film Festival, Rasoulof’s There Is No Evil (2020) won the Golden Bear for best picture. Despite Iranian government censorship, the film was filmed secretly about capital punishment.
Rasoulof, however, was not able to accept the award personally due to a travel ban in Iran. The Golden Bear was accepted on behalf of the director by his daughter Baran. Rasoulof’s organizers left an empty chair and a name card at the news conference.
Mostafa Aleahmad, the third director arrested, is Rasoulof’s associate. The statement was also shared on Aleahmad’s Instagram account. The movie Poosteh (2009) is about a man making his way out of prison while making his way back.
On July 8, Mohammad Rasoulof and Mostafa Aleahmad were detained for posting a statement opposing the brutal crackdown against the agitation following the collapse of the Abadan building.
During the street protests, Rasoulof and Aleahmad were among a group of film personalities who appealed to the country’s security forces to lay down their weapons and return to the nation’s embrace. As one of the signatories and the person who posted the appeal on Instagram, Panahi was not initially arrested but later detained when he went to the prosecutor’s office in Tehran to verify Rasaulof’s case.
According to a colleague of Panahi who spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press, Panahi has been sent to Iran’s notorious Evin Prison. Furthermore, the director has been arrested for serving out a long-term prison sentence.
There has also been public anger over soaring food prices under the hardline government of President Ebrahim Raisi.
As the country plunges deeper into a deeper economic crisis, indirect talks between the US and Iran to revive a 2015 nuclear deal have also hindered.
As a result of the arrests of all three Iranian directors, Cannes issued a statement sharply condemning them. In addition to these arrests, the Festival de Cannes strongly condemns the wave of repression underway in Iran against its artists. According to the statement, “Mohammad Rasoulof, Mostafa Aleahmad, and Jafar Panahi must be released immediately.”
In a statement the was issued previously by Berlinale condemned Rasoulof’s arrest as well. The festival’s directors, Mariette Rissenbeek and Carlo Chatrian, said in a statement: “We are deeply concerned about the arrest of Mohammad Rasoulof and Mostafa Aleahmad.”. It is shocking that artists, and as a result of their peaceful efforts to combat violence, are taken into custody. It is imperative that the Iranian authorities free the two directors.”
Iranian films, which are tightly censored, have always been a source of disagreement for the theocracy. Iranian films that have been acclaimed, screened, or awarded in other countries have been banned in Iran. The country has produced legendary directors such as Jafar Panahi, Abbas Kiarostami, Mohsen Makmalbaf, Asghar Farhadi, Mohammad Rasoulof, Majid Majidi, and many others. These directors have helped Iran gain global recognition through their films.
edited and proofread by nikita sharma