NEW DELHI: Convicts in the 2002 Godhra train burning case, in which 59 Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya were charred to death, have actually mentioned the remission given to the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case to seek their release.

Their pleas have been pending in the Supreme Court given that 2018.

Appearing for them, senior advocate K T S Tulsi, a senior Congress member of Rajya Sabha, stated the majority of the convicts have actually served in between 16-18 years jail time and argued in most cases the conviction by the trial court is doubtful.

Citing Supreme Court orders directing Uttar Pradesh to consider grant of remission to lifers who have served 14 years in jail, Tulsi said pending the choice on appeal versus the 2017 Gujarat High Court judgment travelling death sentence of 11 to life sentence and preserving life sentence to others, these convicts must be released on bail.A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala asked lawyer basic Tushar Mehta, who stood for the Gujarat federal government, whether grant of remission might be considered for these appellants who on an average have actually served more than 14 years sentence.Mehta said the criminal activity was of abhorrent nature-- the train was stopped, petrol poured from outdoors into the S6 coach of Sabarmati Express and was set afire, conspirators and criminals then delighted in heavy stone assailing to avoid guests get away the burning train and preventing fire tenders from reaching the sport resulting in death of 59 individuals including ladies and children.

There can not be a more abhorrent rarest of rare criminal offense than this, he said, including that the state has actually filed petitions for remediation of the death sentence to the 11 whose capital punishments were commuted to life by the HC.Mehta stated, They are not entitled to remission as TADA was conjured up versus them.

A lone Godhra case found guilty, whose appeal is pending in SC, has actually been released on bail on the ground that his spouse is suffering from terminal cancer which there was nobody to take care of his two minor mentally challenged daughters.The SC asked the petitioners advocate on record and state counsel Swati Ghildiyal to prepare a detailed chart briefly including their function and charges versus them which were supported by the HC.

It published more hearing after three weeks.