PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 1055 · Decided: 20-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1055
PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA
v.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 122 of 2020)
MARCH 20, 2020
[R. BANUMATHI, ASHOK BHUSHAN
AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Arts.32 and 72 – Writ petition
challenging the rejection of mercy petition by the President of India
on the ground that the settled principles of consideration of mercy
petition were not followed – Contention of writ petitioner that the
petitioner’s plea of juvenility was not finally determined and this
aspect was not kept in view while rejecting mercy petition u/Art.72
of the Constitution – Held: There is no merit in the contention of
the writ petitioner – The petitioner had earlier raised plea of
juvenility before the Juvenile Justice Board and after considering
the same, the Juvenile Justice Board transferred the petition to the
Sessions Judge – Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed
by the petitioner as being not maintainable – High Court dismissed
the Revision Petition – Special Leave Petition was also dismissed
– Therefore, the petitioner was not right in contending that the plea
of juvenility was not finally determined by the Courts – The plea
of juvenility raised by the petitioner was duly considered and
rejected by the Courts – The petitioner further contended that he
was tortured in the prison and had sustained head injuries and
proper treatment was not given to him – The alleged torture, if any,
in the prison cannot be a ground for judicial review of the
executive order passed under Art.72 of the Constitution of India
rejecting the mercy petition – The contention that the petitioner
might not have shared the common intention along with other co-
accused and that he cannot be imposed the grave capital
punishment were already considered by all the Courts and he was
found guilty and convicted – While exercising the power of judicial
review, this contention cannot be entertained – Detailed orders
were passed while dismissing the writ petitions filed by the co-
convicts – Applying the ratio of those orders, no ground made out
to entertain this writ petition – When the power is vested in the
   [2020] 4 S.C.R. 1055
1055
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1056
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
very high constitutional authority, it must be presumed that the said
authority had acted carefully after considering all the aspects of
the matter – It cannot be said that the mercy petition was not
considered with open mind – Writ petition dismissed – Mercy
petition – Administrative Law – Judicial Review.
Epuru Sudhakar & Another v. Govt. of A.P. & Others
(2006) 8 SCC 161 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 81 ;
Shatrughan Chauhan & Another v. Union of India &
Others (2014) 3 SCC 1 : [2014] 1 SCR 609 – relied
on.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 81
relied on
Para 10
[2014] 1 SCR 609
relied on
Para 10
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 122 of 2020.
Under Article 32 of the Consitution of India
Dr. A.P. Singh, Shams Khwaja, Ms. Geeta Chauhan, V.P. Singh,
Ms. Pratima Rani, Ms. Richa Singh, Sadashiv, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Tushar Mehta,SG, Kanu Agarwal, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Rajat
Nair,/ Manan Popli, Shantnu Sharma,/Rajeev Ranjan, Bhuvan Kapoor/
Varun Chugh, Digvijay D., B.V. Balram Das, Advs. for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
O R D E R
1. In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner Pawan Kumar Gupta has challenged rejection
of mercy petition by His Excellency the President of India inter alia
on various grounds; that settled principles of consideration of mercy
petition have not been followed. The contention of the petitioner is that
the petitioner’s plea of juvenility has not been finally determined and
this aspect was not kept in view by His Excellency the President of
India.
2. By the order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, this Bench
has been constituted and we held the sitting at 2.30 a.m. on 20.03.2020.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1057
3. We have heard Dr. A.P. Singh and Mr. Shams Khwaja, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner/convict Pawan Kumar Gupta.  We
have also heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing
for Union of India and also for NCT of Delhi.  The matter was heard
from 2.30 am till 3.15 a.m.
4. We have carefully gone through the grounds raised by the
petitioner and also submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the materials on record.
5. The petitioner has filed a mercy petitio

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