Monday, May 25, 2020 | Last Update : 11:18 AM IST

62nd Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra50231146001635 Tamil Nadu162778324112 Gujarat140636412858 Delhi134186540261 Rajasthan70283848163 Madhya Pradesh66653408290 Uttar Pradesh62683538161 West Bengal36671339272 Andhra Pradesh2780184156 Bihar257470211 Karnataka208965442 Punjab2060189840 Telangana1854109253 Jammu and Kashmir162180921 Odisha13365507 Haryana118476516 Kerala8485206 Assam393584 Jharkhand3701484 Uttarakhand317583 Chandigarh2621794 Chhatisgarh252640 Himachal Pradesh203594 Tripura1941650 Goa66160 Puducherry41120 Manipur3220 Meghalaya14121 Arunachal Pradesh210 Mizoram110 Sikkim100

Nirbhaya case: SC refuses to take up Prez mercy plea denial

THE ASIAN AGE. | PRAMOD KUMAR
Published : Jan 30, 2020, 1:38 am IST
Updated : Jan 30, 2020, 1:38 am IST

It further said that it was not necessary for the authorities to call for the opinion of the jail superintendent.

Supreme Court
 Supreme Court

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 President Ram Nath Kovind on the ground that all relevant material on the case was not put before the President, and thus there was non-application of mind.

Holding all documents were taken into consideration by the President and the swift rejection of the mercy plea could not be a ground for its reconsideration by the court, Justices R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and A.S. Bopanna said in their order that there was no ground for the exercise of judicial review of the President’s order rejecting the 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”, said the order on Wednesday.

The court rejected all the claims made by Mukesh, including that all relevant material relating to the case was not considered, rejection of the mercy petition was done at a “lightning speed” with “pre-determined mind”, thus there was “non-application of mind”, his being kept in solitary confinement, and subjected to indignities, including being  repeatedly beaten up and sexually harassed.

“The court shall keep in mind that where the 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 plea was decided without considering the entire material.

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 a pre-determined mind.”

The court further said the “quick consideration of the mercy petition and swift rejection of the same cannot be a ground for judicial review of the order passed under Article 72/161 of the Constitution. 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 a delay in disposal of the mercy petition may be a ground calling for judicial review of the order passed under Article 72/161 of the Constitution.

Addressing the contention about the absence of the recommendation of the Tihar jail superintendent while sending the case material along with the mercy plea, the court said considering the “high position of the President” and the “constitutional duty” which he is discharging, it may not be “appropriate” for the jail superintendent to express views about the subsequent conduct of the prisoner while in prison unless the situation so warrants. It further said that it was not necessary for the authorities to call for the opinion of the jail superintendent.

Tags: nirbhaya case, supreme court
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT