Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Pawan Kumar Gupta, a convict in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President of India. The petitioner raised three main grounds: (1) his plea of juvenility had not been finally determined, claiming his date of birth was 08.10.1996 and he was a juvenile on the date of the incident (16.12.2012); (2) he was tortured in prison and sustained head injuries without proper treatment; and (3) he did not share common intention with the other co-accused and should not receive capital punishment. The court noted that the mercy petition was filed on 02.03.2020 and rejected on 04.03.2020, with a second mercy petition filed on 18.03.2020 repeating the same grounds. The court observed that the plea of juvenility had already been considered and rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, the Additional Sessions Judge, the Delhi High Court, and the Supreme Court in earlier proceedings. The court held that the power of judicial review of the President's order under Article 72 is very limited, as established in Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. and Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, and can only be exercised on grounds of non-application of mind, mala fides, extraneous considerations, ignoring relevant materials, or arbitrariness. The court found no such grounds in the present case. The allegations of torture and lack of common intention were not considered valid grounds for review, as they had already been adjudicated. The court also rejected the argument that the President did not consider the mercy petition with an open mind, based on a press report. Applying the ratio of earlier orders dismissing similar petitions by co-convicts, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Mercy Petition - Judicial Review - Article 72 of the Constitution of India - The court held that the power of judicial review of the President's order under Article 72 is limited to grounds such as non-application of mind, mala fides, extraneous considerations, ignoring relevant materials, or arbitrariness, as laid down in Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. (2006) 8 SCC 161 and Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1. (Paras 10-11) B) Criminal Law - Juvenility - Final Determination - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The petitioner's claim of juvenility based on a school certificate was rejected as the plea had been finally determined by the Juvenile Justice Board, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi High Court, and the Supreme Court in earlier proceedings. (Paras 12-15) C) Criminal Law - Mercy Petition - Grounds for Review - Article 72 of the Constitution of India - Allegations of torture in prison and lack of common intention were held not to be grounds for judicial review of the President's order rejecting the mercy petition, as these issues had already been considered by the trial court, High Court, and Supreme Court. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the mercy petition by the President of India is liable to be judicially reviewed on grounds of non-consideration of juvenility plea, alleged torture, and lack of common intention.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no ground for judicial review of the President's order rejecting the mercy petition was made out. The court found that the juvenility plea had been finally determined, and allegations of torture and lack of common intention were not valid grounds for review.
Law Points
- Judicial review of mercy petition under Article 32 is limited to grounds of non-application of mind
- mala fides
- extraneous considerations
- ignoring relevant materials
- or arbitrariness
- plea of juvenility already determined by courts cannot be re-agitated
- alleged torture in prison not a ground for judicial review of presidential order under Article 72
- common intention and guilt already upheld by courts cannot be re-examined in mercy petition review.
