YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 655 · Decided: 28-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 12 S.C.R. 655 
YAKUBABDULRAZAKMEMON 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. THE SECRETARY, 
HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS. 
(Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 129 of 2015) 
JULY28,2015 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Order XLV/11, Rules 4(1) C 
and (2) - Curative petition - 1993 Bombay bomb blasts -
Conviction and death sentence- Question in the instantwrit 
petition arose as to whether the curative petition was decided 
in accordance with law - Held: Anil R. Dave. J.: The review 
petition and curative petition were dismissed -Applications D 
for pardon were rejected by the President of India and the 
Governor of Maharashtra. One more application for pardon 
is still pending - It is open to the Governor to dispose of the 
said application before execution date- In the circumstances, 
writ petition is dismissed- Kurian Joseph. J: Rules 4(1) and E 
(2) state that curative petition has to be circulated to a Bench 
of three senior-most judges and the Judges who passed the · 
judgment complained of, if available - Order dismissing 
curative petition was considered by Bench of three senior-
F 
mo~t judges of the Supreme Court - The curative petition 
was circulated to three senior-most judges only and not to 
other judges who passed the judgment complained of- Thus 
order passed in curative petition was not as per the procedure 
prescribed under the Rules -
Curative petition to be G 
considered afresh in terms of mandatory requirement u/r. 4 
of Order XL VI 11- Death warrant is stayed -
In the matter of 
protection of life, even if a point or ground is not raised in a 
petition, it is the duty of the court to consider.the issue - Law 
is not helpless and court is not powerless - In view of H 
655 
656 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A difference of opinion, matter referred to Three-Judge Bench. 
B 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition 
(Criminal) No. 129 of2015 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
Mukul Rohatgi, AG, Raju Ramachandran, T. R. 
Andhyarujina, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija and Anand Grover, Sr. 
Advs., Faisal Farook, Shubail Farook, Ms. Mythily Vijay Kr. 
Thallam, Vikram Aditya Narayan, Mohd. lzhar Alam, Mrs. Priya 
C Puri, Ranjan Dubey, Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Mahaling 
Pandarge, Mrs. Devanshi Singh, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohtagi, Somit 
Khosla, Gurmehar Sistani, Arpit Rai, Rajiv Nanda (for B. V. 
Bairam Das), Rahul Narayan, Ms. Lubhyathi Rangarajan, 
Nishant Gokhale, Mohit Singh, Ms. Shreya Rastogi (for Rahul 
D Narayan), forthe appearing parties. 
E 
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by 
ANIL R. DAVE, J. Heard the learned senior counsel 
appearing for both the sides at length. 
It is a fact that the conviction of the petitioner has been 
confirmed by this Court and the Review Petition as well as the 
Curative Petition filed by the petitioner have also been 
dismissed by this Court. Moreover, His Excellency Hon'ble 
F The President of India and His Excellency The Governor of 
Maharashtra have also rejected applications for pardon made 
by the petitioner, possibly because of the gravity of the offence 
committed by the petitioner. 
G 
It has been submitted by the learned cour;sel appearing 
for the petitioner that one more application made to His 
Excellency The Governor of Maharashtra is still pending. 
If it is so, it would be open to His Excellency The Governor 
of Maharashtra to dispose of the said application before the 
H 
YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 657 
THR. THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPT 
date on which the sentence is to be executed, if His Excellency A 
Wants to favour the petiPoner. 
Submissions made about the Curative Petition do not 
appeal to me as they are irrelevant and there is no substance 
in them. 
B 
In these circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 
KURIAN JOSEPH, J. I regret my inability to agree with 
my learned brother. 
During the course of admission hearing of the petition 
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, a question arose 
c 
as to whether the Curative Petition in this case has been 
decided in accordance with law. The matter was partly heard 
yesterday and the arguments were deferred for today on this D 
issue. 
Heard Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Mr. T.R.Andhyarujina and 
Mr. Anand Grover, learned senior counsel and Mr.Mukul 
Rohtagi, learned Attorney General, at length. 
, E 
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees life to a 
person and the person shall be deprived of his life only in 
accor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.