1. Writ petition under Article 32 challenging the rejection of a mercy petition by the President of India. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 278
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Akshay Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & ORS. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.121 of 2020 (Arising out of W.P.(CRL.) Diary No(s). 10508 of 2020)
Decided on : 19-03-2020
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):A.P.Singh, Geeta Chauhan, V.P.Singh, Sadashiv, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Tushar Mehta, K.M. Nataraj, Kanu Agarwal, Swati Ghidiyal, Sharath Nambiar, B.V. Balram Das, Advocates
For the NCT :Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate
For the Petitioner(s):A.P.Singh, Geeta Chauhan, V.P.Singh, Sadashiv, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Tushar Mehta, K.M. Nataraj, Kanu Agarwal, Swati Ghidiyal, Sharath Nambiar, B.V. Balram Das, Advocates
For the NCT :Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Judicial review of decision taken by His Excellency the President of India in Mercy Petition is very limited and can be entertained on the grounds enumerated in Epuru Sudhakar.
Judicial review of decision taken by His Excellency the President of India in Mercy Petition is very limited and can be entertained on the grounds enumerated in Epuru Sudhakar.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Judicial Review of Presidential Mercy Petitions
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Judicial review of decision taken by His Excellency the President of India in Mercy Petition - Very limited - On the grounds enumerated in Epuru Sudhakar - No non-application of mind in rejecting the mercy petition - Alleged torture of the petitioner in the prison cannot be a ground for review of the order of rejection of the Mercy Petition by the President of India. (Para 6)
(b) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Judicial review of decision taken by His Excellency the President of India in Mercy Petition - It cannot be held that the highest constitutional authority would be influenced by interviews reported in the newspapers. (Para 7)
(c) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Judicial review of decision taken by His Excellency the President of India in Mercy Petition - Divorce petition filed by wife of convict - And petitions filed by petitioner before Lieutenant Governor and Chief Minister of Delhi under Sections 432 and 433, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Cannot be ground for interfering with Presidential order rejecting the mercy petition. (Para 9)
(d) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Judicial review of decision taken by His Excellency the President of India in Mercy Petition - Sustaining of the injuries by petitioner at the hand of co-convict, treatment given to him and the sutures put on head - Not relevant for instant petition. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner-convict has challenged rejection of his mercy petition by the President of India.
Finding of the Court:
Judicial review of decision taken by His Excellency the President of India in Mercy Petition is very limited. Instant petition cannot be entertained on the grounds relied upon.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to mercy petition rejection based on miscarriage of justice, prison torture, solitary confinement, media influence, and pending divorce proceedings. (Para 4 , 8 )
3. Judicial review of the President's decision on mercy petitions is limited to specific grounds such as non-application of mind, mala fides, or arbitrariness. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 )
4. Judicial review of the President's order under Article 72 is limited to non-application of mind, mala fides, extraneous considerations, omission of relevant materials, or arbitrariness. (Para 5 )
5. Writ petition dismissed. (Para 12 )
6. What are the grounds for judicial review of the President's decision on a mercy petition?
Judicial review is available if the order was passed without application of mind, is mala fide, is based on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations, relevant materials were kept out of consideration, or the order suffers from arbitrariness. (Para 5 )
7. Does alleged torture or solitary confinement in prison constitute a ground for reviewing the rejection of a mercy petition?
No, alleged torture in prison cannot be a ground for the judicial review of the order of rejection of a mercy petition by the President of India. (Para 6 )
8. Can subsequent events, such as a spouse's divorce petition or petitions under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC, justify judicial review of a mercy petition rejection?
No, such subsequent events or pending legal proceedings are not grounds for exercising judicial review of the President's order rejecting a mercy petition. (Para 9 )
ORDER :
1. We have heard Dr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Akshay Kumar Singh-the convict.
2. In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order of rejection of his mercy petition by His Excellency the President of India, inter alia, on various grounds that the settled principles of consideration of mercy petition have not been followed.
3. The petitioner has earlier sent the mercy petition on 31.01.2020 and the same was incomplete. In this regard, the petitioner’s counsel had also sent a letter on 01.02.2020. The petitioner had again sent mercy petition on 18.03.2020 and the same came to be rejected by His Excellency the President of India on 19.03.2020.
4. In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has, inter alia, raised various grounds namely: (i) that there was miscarriage of justice in rejection of the mercy petition (ii) that the petitioner was kept in solitary confinement in violation of Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration & Ors. reported in (1978) 4 SCC 494 (iii) the petitioner has been tortured in the prison for which the petitioner has been given treatment; the petitioner had also referred to the nature of treatment and the medication given to him (iv) The persons in position have given interviews to the media and press and according to the petitioner the rejection of the mercy petition is influenced by such views. The petitioner had, inter alia, also raised other grounds also.
5. The consistent view taken by this Court that the exercise of power of judicial review of the decision taken by His Excellency the President of India in Mercy Petition is very limited. In Epuru Sudhakar and Another v. Govt. of A.P. and Others -2006 (8) SCC 161 vide paras 34 and 35, the Supreme Court has held as under:
“34. The position, therefore, is undeniable that judicial review of the order of the President or the Governor under Article 72 or Article 161, as the case may be, is available and their orders can be impugned on the following grounds:
(a) that the order has been passed without application of mind;
(b) that the order is mala fide;
(c) that the order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations;
(d) that relevant materials have been kept out of consideration;
(e) that the order suffers from arbitrariness.
35. Two important aspects were also highlighted by learned amicus curiae; one relating to the desirability of indicating reasons in the order granting pardon/remission while the other was an equally more important question relating to power to withdraw the order of granting pardon/remission, if subsequently, materials are placed to show that certain relevant materials were not considered or certain materials of extensive value were kept out of consideration. According to learned amicus curiae, reasons are to be indicated, in the absence of which the exercise of judicial review will be affected.”
The said decision was followed in the case of Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 1.
6. Keeping in view the above principles, when we considered the grounds raised by the petitioner, we do not find any ground to hold that there was non-application of mind by the President of India. Insofar as the alleged torture of the petitioner in the prison, as we have held in earlier Writ Petition (criminal) Diary No. 3334 of 2020, the alleged torture in the prison cannot be a ground for review of the order of rejection of the Mercy Petition by the President of India.
7. Insofar as the grounds raised by the petitioner that the Press interviews given by the persons in position of authority reported in the newspapers have influenced the decision of the President of India in rejection of the mercy petition is concerned, when the decision has been taken by the highest constitutional authority like the President of India it cannot be said that the President of India was influenced
