Supreme Court Dismisses Writ Petition By Nirbhaya Convict Challenging The Rejection Of The Mercy Petition

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

Supreme Court has dismissed the writ petition stating that no ground was found entertaining this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the judicial review powers of the President of India exercised under Article 72 of the Constitution of India.

Brief facts of the case

The petitioner, Pawan Kumar Gupta filed a mercy petition on 02.03.2020 and the same was rejected by His Excellency the President of India on 04.03.2020. A second petition was filed on 18.03.2020 repeating the same grounds. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the rejection of mercy petition by his excellency the President of India on various grounds.

Arguments before the court

Shri A.P. Singh and Shri Shams Khwaja, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Pawan Kumar Gupta challenged the mercy petition on four grounds,

[i] that there was a miscarriage of justice in rejection of the mercy petition;

[ii] the petitioner’s claim of juvenility has not been finally determined as he was a juvenile at the time of the incident;

[iii] the petitioner had sustained head injuries in prison for which proper treatment was not administered;

[iv] the petitioner did not share the common intention along with other co-accused and therefore capital punishment should not be awarded.

Shri Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General for the State mainly contended that the plea of juvenility and the conviction raised by the petitioner has been determined and rejected by the trial court, Sessions court and the Delhi High Court. He wholly rejected the third and fourth ground as these cannot be entertained as factors for judicial review of the order of rejection of the mercy petition passed by His Excellency the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court’s view

The court thus, in reliance with Epuru Sudhakar & Another v. Govt. of AP & Ors. held:

The position, therefore, is undeniable that judicial review of the order of the President or the Governor under Article 72 or Article 161, as the case may be, is available and their orders can be impugned on the following grounds:

That the order has been passed without application of mind;

That the order is mala fide;

That the order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations;

That relevant materials have been kept out of consideration;

That the order suffers from arbitrariness”.

In the view of the above reasoning, the court is of the view that the plea of juvenility has been duly considered and rejected by the previous courts as submitted by the respondent. The same was applied to explain the conviction and culpability of the petitioner. They agreed that the alleged torture faced by the petitioner in prison is not a ground for challenging the judicial review powers of His Excellency the President of India in rejecting the mercy petition.

Supreme Court’s decision

Taking in consideration the view of the above reasoning, the court concluded that there is no ground for entertaining the writ petition warranting a judicial review of the order rejecting the mercy petition by His Excellency the President of India. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -