AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 546, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 121 of 2020)
MARCH 19, 2020
[R. BANUMATHI, ASHOK BHUSHAN
AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Nirbhaya Case – Order rejecting mercy petition by the
President of India – Judicial review of – Writ petition filed u/Art.32
by one of the convict – Held: Exercise of power of judicial review
of the decision taken by the President of India in Mercy Petition is
very limited – Considering the grounds raised by the petitioner, no
ground to hold that there was non-application of mind by the
President of India – Constitution of India – Art.32 – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – ss. 432, 433.
Epuru Sudhakar and Another v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors.
(2006) 8 SCC 161 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 81 – relied
on.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494
: [1979] 1 SCR 392; Shatrughan Chauhan &Anr. v.
Union of India & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 1 : [2014] 1 SCR
609 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1979] 1 SCR 392
referred to
Para 4
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 81
relied on
Para 5
[2014] 1 SCR 609
referred to
Para 5
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petiton
(Criminal) No. 121 of 2020.
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.)
Dr. A. P. Singh, Ms. Geeta Chauhan, V. P. Singh and Sadashiv,
Advs. for the Petitioner.
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 546
546
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
547
Tushar Mehta, SG, K. M. Nataraj, ASG, Kanu Agarwal, Ms. Swati
Ghidiyal, Sharath Nambiar, B. V. Balram Das and Chirag M. Shroff,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
O R D E R
1. We have heard Dr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for
the Akshay Kumar Singh-the convict.
2. In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner challenges the order of rejection of his mercy petition
by His Excellency the President of India, inter alia, on various grounds
that the settled principles of consideration of mercy petition have not
been followed.
3. The petitioner has earlier sent the mercy petition on 31.01.2020
and the same was incomplete. In this regard, the petitioner’s counsel
had also sent a letter on 01.02.2020. The petitioner had again sent mercy
petition on 18.03.2020 and the same came to be rejected by His Excellency
the President of India on 19.03.2020.
4. In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has, inter alia, raised various grounds namely: (i)
that there was miscarriage of justice in rejection of the mercy petition
(ii) that the petitioner was kept in solitary confinement in violation of
Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration & Ors. reported in (1978) 4 SCC
494 (iii) the petitioner has been tortured in the prison for which the
petitioner has been given treatment; the petitioner had also referred to
the nature of treatment and the
medication given to him (iv) The persons
in position have given interviews to the media and press and according
to the petitioner the rejection of the mercy petition is influenced by such
views. The petitioner had, inter alia, also raised other grounds also.
5. The consistent view taken by this Court that the exercise of
power of judicial review of the decision taken by His Excellency the
President of India in Mercy Petition is very limited. In Epuru Sudhakar
and Another v. Govt. of A.P. and Others - 2006 (8) SCC 161 vide paras
34 and 35, the Supreme Court has held as under:
“34. The position, therefore, is undeniable that judicial review of
the order of the President or the Governor under Article 72  or
AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
Article 161, as the case may be, is available and their orders can
be impugned on the following grounds:
(a) that the order has been passed without application of mind;
(b) that the order is mala fide;
(c) that the order has been passed on extraneous or wholly
irrelevant considerations;
(d) that relevant materials have been kept out of consideration;
(e) that the order suffers from arbitrariness.
35. Two important aspects were also highlighted by learned amicus
curiae; one relating to the desirability of indicating reasons in the
order granting pardon/remission while the other was an equally
more important question relating to power to withdraw the order
of granting pardon/remission, if subsequently, materials are placed
to show that certain relevant materials were not considered or
certain materials of extensive value were kept out of consideration.
According to learned amicus curiae, reasons are to be indicated,
in the absence of which the exercise of judicial review will be
affected.”
The said decision was followed in the case of Shatrughan Chauhan
& Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 1.
6. Keeping in view the above principles, when we considered the
grounds raised by the petitioner, we do not find any ground to hold that
there was non-application of mind by the President of India. Insofar as
the alleged torture of the petitioner in the prison, as we have held in
earlier Writ Petition
(criminal) Diary No. 3334 of 2020, the alleged torture
in the prison cannot be a ground for review of the order of rejection of
the Mercy Petition by the President of India.
7. Insofar as the grounds raised by the petitioner that the Press
interviews given by the persons in position of authority reported in the
newspapers have influenced the decision of the President of India in
rejection of the mercy petition is concerned, when the decision has been
taken by the highest constitutional authority like the President of India it
cannot be said that the President of India was influenced by such
interviews reported in the newspapers.
8. Dr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
has also contended that the wife of the petitioner has filed divorce petition
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
549
and the same is pending consideration.  The contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that if the death warrants scheduled for 20.03.2020
is executed what will be the fate of the wife who has filed the divorce
petition who has averred that she does not want to live as a widow of
death row convict.
9. As we have pointed out earlier while considering the petition
seeking judicial review of the order of rejection of the Mercy Petition by
the President of India, the exercise of review power is only on the grounds
indicated in Epuru Sudhakar (supra) and other judgments. The divorce
petition said to have been filed by the wife of the petitioner and the
petitions filed by the petitioner before the Lieutenant Governor and Chief
Minister of Delhi under Sections 432 and 433 Cr.P.C. cannot a ground
for exercise of judicial review of the order of the President of India
rejecting the Mercy Petition. Nor can it be said that these subsequent
events ought to have been taken note of by the President of India who
has gone through the records of the case and the evidence and other
materials placed before him.
10. Insofar as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner
as to the sustaining of the injuries by the convict-Pawan Kumar Gupta
and treatment given to him and the sutures put on head are not relevant
consideration of this petition.
11. It is to be pointed out that we have passed a detailed order in
Mukesh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. in Writ
Petition (criminal)
Diary No. 3334 of 2020 dated 29.01.2020 while dismissing the writ petition
challenging the order of rejection of the Mercy Petition by the President
of India. The writ petition filed by Vinay Sharma challenging rejection of
Mercy Petition was also dismissed by a detailed order. Applying those
orders, we do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition warranting
any judicial review of the rejection of the order of the Mercy Petition by
the President of India.
12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Divya Pandey
Writ Petition dismissed.
AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.