New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a plea by Mukesh Kumar, a death row convict in the Nirbhaya case, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President of India on the ground that all relevant material relating to the case was not placed before the President, and thus there was “non-application of mind” in treating his mercy plea.
Holding that all documents were taken into consideration by the President and a swift rejection of mercy petition could not be a ground for its reconsideration by the Court, Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice A.S. Bopanna said in their order that there was no ground for exercise of judicial review of the President’s order rejecting a mercy petition.
“We do not find any ground for exercise of judicial review of the order of the President of India rejecting the petitioner’s mercy petition and this petition is liable to be dismissed,” the order pronounced today said.
The court in its order rejected all contentions of Mukesh, including that all relevant material relating to the case was not considered, rejection of mercy petition was done at a “lightning speed” with “pre-determined mind”, and thus, there was “non-application of mind”, his being kept in solitary confinement, subjected to indignities, including being repeatedly beaten up and sexually harassed in prison.
“The court shall keep in mind that where power is vested in a very high authority, it must be presumed that the said authority would act carefully after an objective consideration of all the aspects of the matter,” the order said, brushing aside the contention that the mercy petition was decided without considering the entire material.
No judicial review for swift rejection
Speaking for the bench, Justice Banumathi said, “merely because there was quick consideration and rejection of the petitioner’s mercy petition, it cannot be assumed that the matter was preceded with pre-determined mind.”
The court further said that the “quick consideration of mercy petition and swift rejection of the same cannot be a ground for judicial review. Nor does it suggest that there was pre-determined mind and non-application of mind.”
Holding that the swift rejection of the mercy petition could not be a ground for judicial reconsideration of the Presidential order, the court noted solicitor-general Tushar Mehta’s submission that delay in disposal of mercy petition may be a ground calling for judicial review of the order passed under Article 72/161 of the Constitution.
Referring to Mukesh’s contention that he was subjected to indignities in prison, including being beaten up in prison and being sexually harassed, the Supreme Court said, “alleged sufferings in prison cannot be a ground for judicial review of executive order passed, rejecting the petitioner’s mercy petition.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will on Thursday consider the curative petition by Akshay Kumar Singh, one of four death row convicts in Nirbhaya case.
The curative petition, last of legal remedies available to a litigant in court of law, would be considered by the judges in their chambers. Akshay Singh has contended that capital punishment is being awarded in courts as a panacea for public pressure and public opinion on violence against women.
