2012 Supreme(SC) 341

2012 (3) Supreme 439
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ.
L.K. Venkat — Petitioner
versus
Union of India and Others — Respondents
Javid Iqbal & Others — Petitioners
versus
V. Sriharan @ Murugan and Others — Respondents
Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos. 383-385 of 2011 with Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos. 462464 of 2011.
Decided on 01-05-2012

Headnote:Constitution of India,1950- Article 139A(1) - Conviction of writ petitioners and some others by Special Judge for offences under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 15 of ‘TADA’and award of death sentence- Appeals thereagainst-Dismissed -Mercy petitions filed by writ petitioners - Rejected by President of India - Writ petitions thereagainst for quashing rejection of petitions filed by them under Article 72 of Constitution-Transfer petitions filed by writ petitioners on plea that hearing thereof in Madras High Court may not be possible in congenial atmosphere due to agitation launched by different political outfits, extremist groups and lawyers and also because thousands of people gathered in the High Court premises and raised slogans outside and inside Court premises- No dispute that the question which arises for consideration in the writ petitions filed by V. Sriharan @ Murugan, T. Suthendraraja @ Santhan and A.G. Perarivalan @ Arivu, that is, whether long delay in the decision of the mercy petitions entitles the convicts to seek commutation of death sentence is similar to the one raised in the cases filed by Devender Pal Singh Bhullar and Mahendra Nath Das- That question is of substantial general importance and decision thereof is likely to affect large number of persons who have been convicted by competent Courts and sentenced to death and whose mercy petitions have remained pending for years together- Hence held that it would be in the interest of justice to transfer three writ petitions pending before Madras High Court to Apex Court-Transfer petitions allowed (Paras 10, 11)

        Constitution of India,1950- Article 139A(1) -Scope and ambit of-Power to transfer the particular case or cases can be exercised by Apex Court either on its own motion or on an application made by Attorney General of India or by a party to such case(s) provided that cases involve the same or substantially the same questions of law which is pending before this Court and one or more High Courts or before two or more High Courts and such questions are substantial questions of general importance (Para 9)

       Facts of the Case :

        A. L. K. Venkat and Javid Iqbal and others have filed these petitions for transfer of Writ Petition No. 20287 of 2011 titled V. Sriharan @ Murugan v. Union of India and others, Writ Petition No. 20288 of 2011 titled T. Suthendraraja @ Santhan v. Union of India and others and Writ Petition No. 20289 of 2011 titled A.G. Perarivalan @ Arivu v. Union of India and others which are pending before the Madras High Court to this Court.

        B. The writ petitioners and some others were convicted by the Special Judge for offences under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and were sentenced to death. The appeals filed by them were dismissed by this Court vide judgment reported as State v. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253. The mercy petitions filed by the writ petitioners were rejected by the President of India .Thereafter, they filed three writ petitions, for quashing the rejection of the petitions filed by them under Article 72 of the Constitution.

        C. The petitioners have sought transfer of the writ petitions by asserting that hearing thereof in the Madras High Court may not be possible in congenial atmosphere because of the agitation launched by different political outfits, extremist groups and lawyers and also because thousands of people gathered in the High Court premises and raised slogans outside and inside the Court premises. The petitioners in the second case have also pleaded that the main question raised in the writ petitions pending before the High Court is identical to the question raised in the cases of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar and Mahendra Nath Das, which are pending before this Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        A. There was no dispute between the parties that the question which arises for consideration in the writ petitions filed by V. Sriharan @ Murugan, T. Suthendraraja @ Santhan and A.G. Perarivalan @ Arivu, that is, whether long delay in the decision of the mercy petitions entitles the convicts to seek commutation of death sentence is similar to the one raised in the cases filed by Devender Pal Singh Bhullar and Mahendra Nath Das. That question is of substantial general importance and decision thereof is likely to affect large number of persons who have been convicted by the competent Courts and sentenced to death and whose mercy petitions have remained pending for years together. Hence held that it would be in the interest of justice to transfer the three writ petitions pending before the Madras High Court to this Court.

        B. In the result, the transfer petitions were allowed and Writ Petition titled V. Sriharan @ Murugan v. Union of India and others, Writ Petition titled T. Suthendraraja @ Santhan v. Union of India and others and Writ Petition titled A.G. Perarivalan @ Arivu v. Union of India and others pending before the Madras High Court were transferred to this Court.