JUDGMENT

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for both the sides at length.

2. 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 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.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that one more application made to His Excellency the Governor of Maharashtra is still pending.

4. If it is so, it would be open to His Excellency The Governor of Maharashtra to dispose of the said application before the date on which the sentence is to be executed, if His Excellency wants to favour the petitioner.

5. Submissions made about the Curative Petition do not appeal to me as they are irrelevant and there is no substance in them.

6. In these circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

       KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

7. I regret my inability to agree with my learned brother.

8. During the course of admission hearing of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, a question arose 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 issue.

9. Heard Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Mr. T.R.Andhyarujina and Mr. Anand Grover, learned senior counsel and Mr.Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General, at length.

10. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees life to a person and the person shall be deprived of his life only in accordance with the procedure established by law. The Curative Petition in Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 is one procedure regarding the remedy available to a person even after the Review Petition is dismissed.

11. The synopsis portion of the Curative Petition reads as follows :-

“The present Curative Petition under Article 142 of the Constitution of India arises in an exceptional case as grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner whereby his fundamental rights as guaranteed to him under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India have been completely violated. Hence, the petitioner most humbly beseeches this Hon'ble Court to kindly reconsider its order dated 9.4.2015, in terms whereof, the Review Petition of the petitioner seeking reconsideration of its Order/Judgment dated 21.3.2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 1728 of 2007 (reported in (2013) 13 SCC 1) was dismissed.”

(emphasis supplied)

12. The prayers in the Curative Petition read as follows:-

(a) Allow the present curative petition filed against the order dated 9.4.2015 in Review Petition (Criminal) No. 474 of 2013;

(b) Consequently, restore Criminal Appeal No. 1728 of 2007 decided on 21.3.2013 for hearing; and

(c) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity.”

13. The order passed in the Curative Petition is made available for perusal in the paperbook of the Writ Petition. It is seen that the order dated 21.07.2015 dismissing the Curative Petition has been considered by a Bench of three senior-most Judges of this Court.

14. Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 deals with Curative Petition and Rule 4(1) and (2) read as follows :-

“4(1) The curative petition shall be first circulated to a Bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment complained of, if available.

(2) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, a curative petition shall be disposed of by circulation, without any oral arguments but the petitioner may supplement his petition by additional written arguments.”

(Emphasis supplied)

15. 'Judgment' is defined under the Supreme Court Rules