Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Akshay Kumar Singh, a death row convict, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President of India. The petitioner had sent a mercy petition on 31.01.2020 which was incomplete, and a subsequent mercy petition on 18.03.2020 was rejected on 19.03.2020. The petitioner raised several grounds: miscarriage of justice in rejection, solitary confinement in violation of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, torture in prison, and that press interviews by persons in authority influenced the President's decision. The Supreme Court, relying on the principles in Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. (2006) 8 SCC 161 and Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1, held that judicial review of the President's order is limited to grounds of non-application of mind, mala fides, extraneous considerations, ignoring relevant materials, and arbitrariness. The Court found no such grounds in this case. It further held that alleged torture in prison cannot be a ground for review, and press interviews cannot be said to have influenced the President. The Court also rejected the contention regarding the petitioner's wife's divorce petition and petitions under Sections 432 and 433 Cr.P.C. as irrelevant. Applying the same reasoning as in the cases of Mukesh Kumar and Vinay Sharma, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Mercy Petition - Judicial Review - Article 72 of the Constitution of India - The Supreme Court held that judicial review of the President's order rejecting a mercy petition is limited to grounds such as non-application of mind, mala fides, extraneous considerations, ignoring relevant materials, and arbitrariness, as laid down in Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. (2006) 8 SCC 161. (Paras 5-6) B) Criminal Law - Death Sentence - Mercy Petition - Torture in Prison - The Court held that alleged torture in prison cannot be a ground for judicial review of the rejection of a mercy petition by the President. (Para 6) C) Constitutional Law - President of India - Influence of Media - The Court held that when the decision is taken by the highest constitutional authority like the President, it cannot be said that press interviews influenced the decision. (Para 7) D) Criminal Law - Death Sentence - Subsequent Events - Divorce Petition - The Court held that a divorce petition filed by the convict's wife or petitions under Sections 432 and 433 Cr.P.C. are not relevant grounds for judicial review of the mercy petition rejection. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the mercy petition by the President of India is liable to be judicially reviewed on the grounds raised by the petitioner.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds for judicial review of the President's order rejecting the mercy petition.
Law Points
- Judicial review of mercy petition rejection is limited to grounds of non-application of mind
- mala fides
- extraneous considerations
- ignoring relevant materials
- arbitrariness
- torture in prison not a ground for review
- press interviews cannot influence President's decision
- subsequent events like divorce petition not relevant.
