LexVINAY SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 393 VINAY SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 65 of 2020) FEBRUARY 14, 2020 [R. BANUMATHI, ASHOK BHUSHAN AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.] Constitution of India: Art.72 – Writ petition challenging the rejection of mercy petition by the President of India and seeking commutation of death sentence inter alia on the grounds of non furnishing of relevant materials under the RTI Act, non- consideration of relevant material, torture, mental illness, illegal solitary confinement – Held: In the writ petition filed u/Art.32 seeking judicial review of the order of the President passed u/Art.72, the scope is very limited and the Court is called upon to examine:- where the order has been passed without application of mind; where the order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations; that relevant materials are kept out consideration and the order suffers from arbitrariness – In the instant case, the case records, judgments of trial court, High Court and Supreme Court, clean copy of records of the case, Nominal Roll of the petitioner, medical report of the petitioner, Social Investigation Report and other relevant documents were forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs – Recommendation by the Lieutenant Governor and Home Minister for rejection of mercy petition was made after perusing the file and therefore plea of non-application of mind on their part is not tenable – All the documents along with the mercy petition were taken into consideration – Medical report of the petitioner along with the treatment and his latest report was placed before the President – Alleged suffering of the petitioner in the prison cannot be ground for judicial review of the executive order passed u/Art.72 – When the highest constitutional authority, upon perusal of the Note and the various documents placed along with the mercy petition, took decision to reject the mercy petition, it cannot be contended that the highest constitutional authority had not applied its mind to the documents – While forwarding the mercy petition, the Social Investigation Report of the petitioner containing the economic [2020] 10 S.C.R. 393 393 A B C D E F G H 394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R. conditions of the family was also enclosed – It is also clear from the affidavit of Prison Authority, that the petitioner was not kept in solitary confinement, rather he was kept in protective custody which was for his own benefit and also for ensuring the security – The Note put up before the President is detailed one and all the relevant materials were placed before the President and upon consideration of same, the mercy petition was rejected – No ground for exercise of judicial review of the order rejecting the petitioner’s mercy petition was made out – Writ petition dismissed – Administrative law – Judicial review. Maru Ram v. Union of India and Others (1981) 1 SCC 107 – Followed. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Others (1978) 4 SCC 494 : [1979] 1 SCR 392; Shatrughan Chauhan and Another v. Union of India and Others (2014) 3 SCC 1 : [2014] 1 SCR 609; Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State of (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 6 SCC 195 : [2013] 6 SCR 676; Satpal v. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 170 : [2000] 3 SCR 858; Bikas Chatterjee v. Union of India and Others (2004) 7 SCC 634; Epuru Sudhakar and Another v. Govt. of A.P. and Others (2006) 8 SCC 161 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 81; Narayan Dutt and Others v. State of Punjab and Another (2011) 4 SCC 353 : [2011] 4 SCR 983 – relied on Mukesh and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (2017) 6 SCC 1 – referred to Case Law Reference (2017) 6 SCC 1 referred to Para 2 [1979] 1 SCR 392 relied on Para 7 [2014] 1 SCR 609 relied on Para 7 [2013] 6 SCR 676 relied on Para 10 [2000] 3 SCR 858 relied on Para 11 (2004) 7 SCC 634 relied on Para 11 A B C D E F G H 395 [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 81 relied on Para 12 [2011] 4 SCR 983 relied on Para 25 (1981) 1 SCC 107 followed Para 31 (2004) 7 SCC 634 relied on Para 31 CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 65 of 2020. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Dr. A.P. Singh, V.P. Singh, Ms. Geeta Chauhan, Ms. Richa Singh, Ms. Pratima Rani, Sadashiv, Advs. for the Petitioner. Tushar Mehta, SG, Chirag M. Shroff, Kanu Agrawal, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, B.V. Balaram Das, Ms. Seema Kushwaha, Ms. Yashika Verma, Ms. Abhilasha Bharti, Advs. for the Respondents. The Order of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This writ petition has
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.