Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Del) 1393

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ.
Mukesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Uoi & Ors. - Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 110 of 2020 and CRL.M.A.737 of 2020
Decided On : 15-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Ms.Rebecca John, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Vrinda Grover, Mr.Siddhartha Sharma, Mr.Harsh Bora, Ms.Maulshree Pathak, Ms.Praavita Kashyap, Ms.Joshika Saraf and Ms.Megha Bahl, Advocates, for the Appellant; Ms.ManinderAcharya, ASG with Mr.Kirtiman Singh, CGSC, Ms.Waize Ali Noor, Mr.Viplav Acharya, Mr.Rohan Anand, Ms.Shefali Jaiswal, Mr.Krishnesh Bopat and Mr.Shihhan Kishore, Advocates, for the Union of India; Mr.Rahul Mehra, standing counsel with Mr.Chaitanya Gosain, Mr.Amanpreet Singh and Mr.Divyank Tyagi, Advocates with Inspector Ravi Shanker, SI Amit Kumar, SHO Vasant Vihar. Mr.Raj Kumar, AIG, Mr.Jorawar Singh, OIC and Mr.Parshant Varma, Legal Cell, for the State; Mr.M.N.Khan, Dy.Secretary, Judicial Division,, for the MHA/UOI; Mr.Jitendra Kumar Jha and Ms.Seema Kushwaha, Advocates for Nirbhaya''s parents, for the Respondents

The petitioner cannot challenge the execution date without filing a curative or mercy petition, and the High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the challenge after the Supreme Court has confirmed the death sentence.

Headnote:
Constitution of India - Writ Petition - Execution Date Challenge - The court held that the petitioner cannot challenge the date of execution mentioned in the impugned order as the petitioner had neither filed a curative nor a mercy petition before the date of the impugned order. The court further stated that once the Supreme Court has dismissed the petitioner's criminal appeal and review and curative petitions, the petitioner cannot challenge the Additional Sessions Judge's order fixing a date of hanging before the High Court.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the date for execution set by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's challenge was premature and that the petitioner cannot challenge the execution date without filing a curative or mercy petition. The court also held that the petitioner cannot challenge the order of the Additional Sessions Judge after the Supreme Court has confirmed the death sentence.
Issues: Prematurity of the writ petition, challenge to execution date without filing curative or mercy petition, jurisdiction of the High Court after Supreme Court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner cannot challenge the execution date without filing a curative or mercy petition, and the High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the challenge after the Supreme Court has confirmed the death sentence.
Final Decision: The writ petition along with the pending application was disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to file an appropriate application before the Trial Court bringing the subsequent events to its attention.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral) - Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 07 th January, 2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby 22 nd January, 2020 has been fixed as the date for execution of the petitioner.

2. While learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that the order dated 07 th January, 2020 has not been impugned, only the date of execution i.e. 22 nd January, 2020 has been sought to be set aside, learned counsel for the respondents state that the present writ petition is premature.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that there is no error in the order dated 07 th January, 2020 as till the date the impugned order was passed, the petitioner had neither filed a curative nor a mercy petition. If the petitioner is of the opinion that the date of execution mentioned in the impugned order needs to be set aside in view of any subsequent event, then he must approach the court that passed the impugned order.

4. This Court is further of the opinion that once the Supreme Court has dismissed the petitioners criminal appeal confirming the death sentence as well as the review and curative petitions, the petitioner cannot challenge the Additional Sessions Judges order dated 07 th January, 2020 fixing a date of hanging before the High Court as the said order is nothing but carrying the orders passed by Apex Court to its logical conclusion. In the event, the petitioner is aggrieved by any such order, he shall have to approach the Apex Court.

5. At this stage, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would file an appropriate application before the Trial Court bringing the subsequent events to its attention.

6. With the aforesaid liberty and observations, the present criminal writ petition along with the pending application stand disposed of.

7. Order dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(Del) 1393

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIManmohan, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ.Mukesh Kumar - AppellantVersusUoi & Ors. - RespondentW.P.(CRL) 110 of 2020 and CRL.M.A.737 of 2020Decided On : 15-01-2020

The petitioner cannot challenge the execution date without filing a curative or mercy petition, and the High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the challenge after the Supreme Court has confirmed the death sentence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ.
Mukesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Uoi & Ors. - Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 110 of 2020 and CRL.M.A.737 of 2020
Decided On : 15-01-2020