YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 689, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
[2015] 12 S.C:-R. 689 
YAKUBABDULRAZAKMEMON 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRAANDANR. 
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) N0.135 OF 2015 
JULY30,2015 
[DIPAK MISRA, PRAFULLA C. PANT AND 
AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
A 
B 
,., Mercy petition: 1993 Bombay bomb blasts - Petitioner c 
convicted and awarded death sentence - Mercy petition 
rejected - Death warrant issued -
Writ petition - Legal 
justifiability of warrant for execution of petitioner on 30. 7. 2013 
assailed and direction sought for stay of execution till disposal 
of writ petition on the ground of not granting of 14 days' time D 
from the date of receipt of communication of rejection of the 
mercy petition - Held: Almost 22 years have passed since 
1993 when the incident occurred - There was no error in the 
issue of the death warrant - When the first mercy petition 
was rejected on 11. 04. 2014, there was sufficient time available E 
to the petitioner to make arrangement for his family members 
to meet him in prison and make necessary worldly 
arrangements -
He had adequate time to prepare himself 
to meet his Maker and to make peace with himself - The 
family was allowed to meet him whenever they desired as F 
per the Jail Manual- The rejection of the first mercy petition 
by the President of India could have been assailed before 
Supreme Cowt. but it was not done - It was not a case of 
such nature where it could be said that legal remedy was 
denied to the petitioner -
The first mercy petition was G 
submitted by the brother of the
petitioner, but the facts clearly 
showed that he was aware of the same- The present mercy 
petition was, therefore, not preferred by the petitioner for the 
first time and. therefore, 14 days' time should not be granted. 
H 
689
. , . 
"'·" 
.. 
690 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015J 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is no ~ispute over the fact that the 
brother of the petitioner had submitted representation 
invoking the authority of the President of India under 
B Article 72 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner does 
not disown the submission of the petition by his brother 
on his behalf. In fact, he had communicated to the 
Superintendent, Central Jail, Nagpur, on 07.08.2013, 
informing him about receipt of the petition by the office 
C of the President o-f India so as to pursue the same. The 
said mercy petition stood rejected on 11.04.2014. The 
petitioner did not challenge the rejection of the mercy 
petition by the President of India and accepted his fate. 
[Para 6) [697 -A-CJ 
D 
2. The mercy petition was preferred on 6.08.2013 
and prior to that, the review petition was dismissed by 
circulation on 30.07 .2013 by the two-Judge Bench of this 
Court which had decided the appeal on 21.03.2013. As 
E is evident, the constitutional validity of the rule relating 
to review was called in question before this Court. The 
Constitution Bench in dealing with the said rule opined 
that in death cases, the matter should be heard by a 
three-Judge Bench and the revjew petition should be 
F heard in the open court by giving maximum time limit of 
30 minutes to the convict. Since the petitioner had not 
filed a curative petition, he was entitled to seek reopening 
of the
review petition, as per the liberty granted to certain 
categories of cases in Mohd. Arif Alias Ashfaq. 
G Accordingly, his review petition was heard by a three-
Judge Bench in the open Court. After rejection of the 
said review petition on 09.04.2015, he filed a curative 
petition on 22.05.2015 which also got dismissed on 
21.07 .2015. At this stage, it is imperative to state that 
H
YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK ME MON v. STATE OF 
691 
MAHARASHTRA 
despite the Constitution Bench saying that there shall A 
be oral hearing of the application for review for a 
maximum period of 30 minutes, the review petition was 
heard for almost ten days. The purpose of mentioning 
the same is that ample opportunity was afforded to the 
petitioner. After rejection of the curative petition on B 
21.07.2015, the petitioner submitted a mercy petition to 
the Governor, Maharashtra which was received on 
22.07 .2015. He also submitted another mercy petition to 
the President of India which was received by the 
President of India at 2.00 p.m. on 29.07 .2015. Both these C 
mercy petitions were rejected. [Paras 7 to 9] [697-D-H; 
698-A-C] 
3. The question that emerges for consideration is 
whether on the ground of not granting of 14 days' time D 
from the date of receipt of communication of rejection of 
the mercy petition, should the warrant which is going to 
be executed at 7.00 a.m. on 30.07.2015 be stayed. The 
instant petition is a clear expose of the manipulation of 
the principle of rule of law. The petitioner was tried for E 
which is known as "Bombay Blast Case' and stood 
convicted in the year 2007. Almost 22 years have passed 
since 1993 when the incident occurred. There was no 
error in the issue of the death warrant. When the first F 
mercy petition was rejected on 11.04.2014, there was 
sufficient time available to the petitioner to make 
arrangement for his family members to
meet him in 
prison and make necessary worldly arrangements. 
There was adequate time to prepare himself to meet his G 
Maker and to make peace with himself. The family was 
allowed to meet the petitioner whenever they desired as 
per the Jail Manual. [Paras 11, 12] [699-E; 700-A-E] 
4. The rejection of the first mercy petition by the · 
H
692 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A President of India could have been assailed before this 
Court, but it was not done. It is not a case of such nature 
where it can be said that legal remedy was denied to the 
petitioner. True it is, the first mercy petition was 
submitted by the brother of the petitioner, but as the facts 
B would clearly show, he was aware of the same. The 
present mercy petition was therefore not preferred by 
the petitioner for the first time and, therefore, 14 days' 
time should not be granted. [Para 13) [700-F-H; 701-A-B] 
c 
Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. v. Union of India & 
Ors. (2014) 3 sec 1: 2014 (1) SCR 609; Mohd. 
Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of 
India and Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 737 - referred to. 
D 
Case Law Reference 
2014 (1) SCR 609 
(2014) 9 sec 737 
referred to. 
referred to. 
Para 4 
Para 7 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl.) 
E No. 135 OF 2015 
Under Article 32 of the Constituion of India. 
Anand Grover, Sr. Adv., Yug Chaudhry, Ms. Nithya 
Rarnakrishnan, Ms. Vrinda Grover, Prashant Bhushan, Ms. 
F Anindita Pujari, Rishabh Sancheti, Siddhartha Sharma, Ms. 
G 
H 
Amritanandamayer, Ms. Tripti, Nishant Gokhale, Naseer 
Ahmed, Ms. Lubhyathi Raarajan, Ms. Shreya Ratogi, Ms. 
Preetika Dwivedi, Ms. Sansriti Pathak, S. Ranjit Marar, 
Siddharth Sharma,Advs. with him for the Petitioner. 
Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney General of India, Nishant 
Katneshwarkar, Ms. Devanshi Singh, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, 
Sameer
Rohatgi, Guramer Sistani, Advs., with him for the 
Respondents.
YAKUBABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 
693 
MAHARASHTRA 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The issue that had seen the end 
after the day's drill at 4.15 p.m. yesterday, i.e., 29.07.2015, 
appears to have unending character becauseyrecisely after. 
ten hours, about 3.15 a.m. on 30.07.2015, it has risen like a B 
phoenix possibly harbouring the idea that it has the potentiality 
to urge for a second lease of life as put forth by Mr. Anand 
Grover, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Yug Chaudhry, learned 
coun.;:;el, appearing for the petitioner, stating that the assail 
has become inevitable after the President of India in exercise C 
of his power under Article 72 of the Constitution has rejected 
the mercy petition preferred by the petitioner. Be it stated, it 
is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by 
virtue of the rejection of the mercy petition, the death warrant 
issued on 30.4.2015 would be executed today, without waiting D 
for 14 days, and hence, there should be a grant of stay. 
2. We may mention that, before the ink in the earlier 
judgment has dried up, the present writ petition has been filed 
by the petitioner assailing the legal justifiability of the e~ecution E 
warrant dated 30.04.2015 issued by the Presiding officer, 
Designated TADA Court, Mumbai, for execution of the 
petitioner at 7.00 a.m. on 30.07.2015 and further to direct the 
stay of the petitioner's execution till the instant writ petition is 
disposed
of. 
F 
3. We do not have to adumbrate the facts in entirety as 
the facts of the instant case have beer) elaborately stated in 
W.P. (Crl.) No. 129 of 2015 which has been dismissed on 
29.07.2015. In the earlier writ petition, the prayer, in G 
quintessentiality, was made for setting aside the death warrant 
issued by the Designated TADA Court, Mumbai. The grounds 
were many but we must state with certitude that they did not 
find favour with us. Mr. Grover, learned Senior Counsel would 
H
694 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A submit that it might appear that the prayers in the present 
petition are the same and anyone may foster the idea that an 
effort has been made in a contrived manner to procrastinate 
the date of execution of the convict, but it is not so. He would 
further submit that by the occurrence of subsequent events that 
B took place after the pronouncement of the judgment, fresh 
grounds have emerged which could not have been conceived 
of at the time when the matter was argued. It is urged that 
though the prayer is the same, yet the grounds are totally 
different. 
c 
4. At this juncture, the subsequent event which has been 
accentuated upon by Mr. Grover, learned Senior Counsel and 
Mr. Chaudhry, learned counsel, needs to be noted. After we 
dismissed the earlier writ petition being W.P.(Crl) No. 129 of 
D 2015, the President of India rejected the mercy petition of the 
petitioner. The fulcrum of the submission of Mr. Grover is that 
the petitioner is entitled in law to challenge the same albeit on 
a limited ground and, therefore, a three-Judge Bench of this 
Court in Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. v. Union of India & 
E ors.
1 has, upon perusal of various jail manuals which exhibited 
discrepancies, intended to rationalise by laying down a 
minimum period so that the convict can make certain 
arrangements. To put it succinctly, when a mercy petition is 
rejected, there has to be a minimum period of 14 days between 
F its rejection
being communicated to the petitioner and his family 
and the scheduled date of execution. That apart, minimum 
period of 14 days is stipulated between the communication of 
the death warrant to the petitior:ier and the scheduled date of 
G execution. 
5. Mr. Grover, learned senior Counsel appearing for the 
petitioner, would contend that both the conditions are to be 
satisfied as they are cumulative in nature. There can be no 
H 
1 r2014J 3 sec 1
YAKUBABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 
695 
MAHARASHTRA [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
cavil over the same. FirS.t, to the second condition. The death A 
warrant was issued on 30.04.2015 which was admittedly 
received by the petitioner on 13.07.2015 arid the date of its 
execution is 30.07.2015, i.e., today. Thus, one of the facets is 
met with. As far as the first aspect is concerned, in the earlier 
judgment passed in W.P.(Crl) No. 129/2015, this Court has B 
held thus:-
"After the judgment was pronounced on 21.03.2013, an 
application for review was filed, which was dismissed 
by circulation on 30.07.2013. After the rejection of the c 
application for review, Suleman, the brother of the 
petitioner, represented under Article 72 of the Constitution 
to the President of India on 06.08.2013, claiming benefits 
under Article 72( 1) of the Constitution. The petitioner on 
07.08.2013, wrote to the Superintendent, Central Jail, D 
Nagpur, informing him about receipt of petition by the 
office of the President of India. On 02.09.2013, the 
Government of India forwarded the mercy petition of the 
convict addressed to the President of India, to the· 
Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mahrashtra, as 
E 
per the procedure. The Governor of Maharashtra 
rejected representation on 14.11.2013 and on 
30.09.2013, the State Government informed the Central 
Government about rejection of the mercy petition by the 
governor of Maharashtra. On receipt of the said 
F 
communication from the State
Government on 
10.03.2014, the summary of the case/mercy petition 
prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs under the 
signatures of Home Minister was forwarded to the 
Petitioner. The said rejection was communicated to the G 
stipulation that the convict be informed and, accordingly, 
on 26.05.2014, the petitioner was informed about the 
rejection of mercy petition by the President of India." 
We have reproduced the whole paragraph as they state H
696 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015]12 S.C.R. 
A the facts in completeness. Before we proceed with regard to 
the necessity for grant of 14 days' time after receipt of 
communication of the rejection of the mercy petition, it is 
appropriate to refer to paragraph 241.7 of the Shatrughan 
B 
Chauhan's case (supra) which reads as follows:-
"241. 7. Some Prison Manuals do not provide for any 
minimum period between the rejection of the mercy 
petition being communicated to the prisoner and his 
family and the scheduled date of execution. Some Prison 
c 
Manulas have a minimum period of 1 day, others have a 
minimum period of 14 days. It is necessary that a 
minimum period of 14 days be stipulated between the 
receipt of communication of the rejection of the mercy 
petition and the scheduled date of execution for the 
D 
following reasons: 
(a) It allows the prisoner to prepare himself mentally for 
execution, to make his peace with God, prepare his will 
and settle other earthly affairs. 
E 
(b) It allows the prisoner to have a last and final meeting 
with his family members. It also allows the prisoners' 
family members to make arrangements to travel to the 
prison which may be located at a distant place and meet 
the prisoner for the last time. Without sufficient notice of 
F 
the scheduled date of execution, the prisoners' ri~ht to 
avail of judicial remedies will be thwarted and they will 
be prevented from having a last and final meeting with 
their families." 
G 
It is
urged by Mr. Grover, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. 
Chaudhry, learned counsel that the first mercy petition was 
submitted by Suleman, brother of the petitioner, on 06.08.2013 
which stood rejected on 11.04.2014 by the President of India 
and that was communicated to the petitioner on 26.05.2014, 
H but the petitioner had not submitted any mercy petition.
YAKUBABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 
697 
MAHARASHTRA [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
6. There is no dispute over the fact that the petitioner A 
had not submitted any representation invoking the authority of 
the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution of 
India. However, it is not in dispute that his brother had 
submitted. It is also beyond dispute that the petitioner does 
not disown the submission of the petition by his brother.on his B 
behalf. In fact, he had communicated to the Superintendent, 
Central Jail, Nagpur, on 07.08.2013, informing him about 
receipt of the petition by the office of the President of India so 
as to pursue the same. The said mercy petition as has been 
indicated earlier stood rejected on 11.04.2014. The petitioner C 
did not think it appropriate to challenge the rejection of the 
mercy petition by the President of India. He accepted his fate. 
7. Be it stated here, the mercy petition was preferred on 
6.08.2013 and prior to that, the review petition was dismissed D 
by circulation on 30.07 .2013 by the two-Judge Bench of this 
Court which had decided the appeal on 21.03.2013. As is 
evident, the constitutional validity of the rule relating to review 
was called in question before this Court. The Constitution 
Bench in Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme E 
Court of India and Ors. 2 dealing with the said rule opined 
that in death cases, the matter should be heard .by a three-
Judge Bench and the review petition should be heard in
the 
open court by giving maximum time limit of 30 minutes to the 
F 
convict. 
8. Since the petitioner had not filed a curative petition, 
he was entitled to seek reopening of the review petition, as 
per the liberty granted to certain categories of cases in Mohd. 
Arif Alias Ashfaq (supra). Accordingly, his revieVI! petition G 
was heard by a three-Judge Bench in the open Court. After 
rejection of the said review petition on 09.04.2015, he filed a 
curative petition on 22.05.2015 which also got dismissed on 
2 (2014) g sec 737 
H
698 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A 21.07.2015. At this stage, it is imperative to state that despite 
the Constitution Bench saying that there shall be oral hearing 
of the application for review for a maximum period of 30 
minutes, the review petition was heard for almost ten days. 
The purpose of mentioning the same is that ample opportunity 
B was afforded to the petitioner. 
9. After rejection of the curative petition on the 
21.07.2015, the petitioner submitted a mercy petition to the 
Governor, Maharashtra which was received on 22.07.2015. 
C He also submitted another mercy petition to the President of 
India which was received by the President of India at2.00 p.m. 
on 29.07.2015. Both these mercy petitions have been 
rejected. 
o 
10. It is submitted by Mr. Grover, learned Senior Counsel, 
that as per the principle stated in Shatrughan Chauhan 
(supra), the petitioner is entitled to claim commutation of death 
sentence to life imprisonment on the basis of supervening 
circumstances. For the said purpose, he has referred to 
E paragraphs 28 and 29 of the decision in Shatrughan 
F 
G 
H 
Chauhan (supra) which read as under:-
"28. The petitioners herein have asserted the following 
events as the supervening circumstances, for 
communication of death sentence to life imprisonment: 
(i) 
Delay 
(ii) 
Insanity 
(iii) Solitary confinement 
(iv) Judgments declared per incuriam 
(v) 
Procedurcil laspses 
29. All the petitioners have more or less asserted on the
aforesaid grounds which, in their opinion, the executive 
had failed to take note of while rejecting the mercy 
petitions filed by them. Let us discuss them distinctively
YAKUBABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 
699 
MAHARASHTRA [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
and come to a conclusion whether each of the A 
circumstances exclusively or together warrants the 
communication of death sentence into life imprisonment." 
What is submitted today is that the petitioner can 
challenge the rejection of the mercy petition only when it is B 
formally served on him, for the counsel for the petitioner have 
only come to know from the news report about the rejection of 
the mercy petition by the President of India. Thus, 14 days' 
time has not been granted and he has been deprived of the · 
right to assail the same. As has bee1.1 stated earlier, the said c 
stand has been sought to be highlighted on the basis of the 
reasons stated in paragraph 241.7 of the case of Shatrughan 
Chauhan (supra). Pyramiding the said submission, it is 
propounded by Mr. Grover, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. 
Chaudhry, learned counsel that in the absence of any time to D 
assail the rejection of the mercy petition, the execution of death 
warrant deserves to be stayed. 
11. The question that emerges for consideration is 
whether on the ground of not granting of 14 days' time from the E 
date of receipt of communication of rejection of the mercy 
petition, should the warrant which is going to be executed at 
7.00a.m. on 30.07.2015 be stayed. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned 
Attorney General for India, appearing for the respondent, would 
submit that the mercy petition is.considered by the President F
of India in exercise of his power under Article 72 of the 
Constitution of India and when he has rejected the mercy . 
petition after due consideration of all the relevant facts on earlier 
occasion, if such kind of repetitive mercy petitions are allowed 
to be submitted and further challenge to the rejection of the G 
same is permitted, the danger of the concept of ad infinitum 
would enter into the field. Mr. Rohatgi would further contend 
that at the drop of a hat, everybody can add a new fact or a 
new development and expect the President of India to deal 
with it as contemplated under Article 72 of the Constitution of H
700 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A India and, thereafter, challenge the same in a court of law. 
12. The instant petition is a clear expose of the 
manipulation of the principle of rule of law. The petitioner was 
tried for which is known as "Bombay Blast Case' and stood 
B convicted in the year 2007. Almost 22 years have passed 
since 1993 when the incident occurred. We have not perceived 
any error in the issue of the death warrant as per our order 
dated 29.07.2015 passed in W.P. (Crl) No.129 of 2015. The 
only exception which has been enthusiastically carved out by 
C Mr. Grover, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Chaudhry, learned 
counsel is that they are entitled to get 14 days' time to assail 
the rejection of the mercy petition. When the first mercy petition 
was rejected on 11.04.2014, there was sufficient time available 
to the petitioner to make arrangement for hisfamily members 
D to meet him in prison and make necessary worldly 
arrangements. There was adequate time to prepare himself 
to meet his Maker and to make peace with himself. We have 
been apprised by Mr. Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for 
India that the family was allowed to meet the petitioner 
E whenever they desired as per the Jail Manual. 
13. The residuary part of the submissions put forth by the 
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner can still 
challenge the rejection of his .mercy petition. On a first glance, 
F the aforesaid submission may look quite
attractive, but in the 
present case the same does not have much commendation 
· because the rejection of the first mercy petition· by the President 
of India could have been assailed before this Court, but it was 
not done. We have been apprised that the copy of the order 
G of rejection of the mercy petition has been sent to the petitioner, 
but the fact remains that after the rejection of the first mercy 
petition, despite sufficient time, the petitioner chose not to 
challenge the same. We do not think that it is a case of such 
nature where it can be said that legal remedy was denied to 
H
YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK ME MON v. STATE OF 
701 
MAHARASHTRA [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
the petitioner. True it is, the first mercy petition was submitted A 
by the brother of the petitioner, but as the facts would clearly 
show. he was aware of the same. Learned Attorney General 
would contend that the petitioner, in fact. had written a letter to 
the concerned Superintendent of Jail pertaining to the same. 
Regard being had to the totality of facts and circumstances of B 
this case, we are not inclined to accept the submission that 
the present mercy petition was preferred by the petitioner for 
the first time and, therefore, 14 days' time should be granted 
so that he can do the needful as per law. In our considered 
opinion, to grant him further time to challenge the rejection of C 
the second mercy petition for which we have to stay the 
execution of the death warrant dated 30.04.2015 would be 
nothing but travesty of justice. 
14. R~sultantly, we do not perceive any merit in this writ D 
petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeal dismissed.