AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 546 · Decided: 19-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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 wer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.