The Supreme Court of India has rejected the plea made by several convicts in the 2002 Godhra train burning case, who argued that a two-judge bench was not competent to hear their appeals against conviction. The case pertains to the burning of the Sabarmati Express train in Godhra, Gujarat, which resulted in the death of 59 people and triggered widespread riots in the state.

The convicts, who were initially handed down the death penalty, contended that since the matter involved capital punishment, their appeals should be heard by a bench of three judges. Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing two of the convicts, cited the Red Fort terror attack case, where Mohammad Arif alias Ashfaq was sentenced to death, arguing that cases involving capital punishment should be adjudicated by a three-judge bench. Hegde further argued that if the two-judge bench decided to award the death penalty to some of the accused, the matter would have to be re-argued before a three-judge bench.

However, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, dismissed these submissions. The bench referred to the relevant Supreme Court rules and a previous judgment, clarifying that a three-judge bench is only required to hear appeals in cases where the High Court has either confirmed a death penalty or awarded it after hearing the appeals. In this particular case, the Gujarat High Court had commuted the death penalty of 11 convicts to life imprisonment. The trial court originally imposed the death penalty. Therefore, the bench stated that the existing rules and previous judgments did not prevent a two-judge bench from hearing the appeals. "The objection is repelled," the bench stated.

The Supreme Court's decision clarifies the procedure for hearing appeals in cases involving the death penalty. It emphasizes that a three-judge bench is necessary when the High Court has actively affirmed or imposed a death sentence. In cases where the High Court has commuted a death sentence, a two-judge bench is deemed competent to hear appeals against conviction. With the objection overruled, the bench proceeded to commence hearing the appeals.