‘Review of mercy plea rejection is limited’
SC Bench refuses to accede to a request by Nirbhaya case convict
29/01/2020, KRISHNADAS RAJAGOPAL,NEW DELHI
Mukesh Singh, one of the four convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape case, in New Delhi. PTIPTI
The scope of a judicial review of the President’s decision to reject a mercy petition is “very limited”, the Supreme Court on Tuesday orally told the lawyers for Nirbhaya case convict Mukesh Singh.
A three-judge Bench, led by Justice R. Banumathi, refused to accede to a request by Mukesh, represented by senior advocates Anjana Prakash, Rebecca John and Vrinda Grover, for perusal of the original files of the correspondence on his mercy petition and official notings.
Justice Banumathi said the court did not want to wade into an “uncharted territory”. “We do not deem it appropriate to concede the request and the same is declined,” the order read. The court would pronounce its order on Wednesday, she said.
‘Relevant records’
Ms. Prakash and Ms. John argued that the government’s affidavit was “evasive” about whether all “relevant records” on Mukesh’s incarceration were shown to the President for an informed decision. Ms. Prakash said the government was mum on the jail records on his solitary confinement. In several rulings, the court had held that solitary confinement for long would be a reason for grant of mercy.
The lawyers said Mukesh had suffered torture and abuse in prison. They asked whether his medical records from the time of his arrest to the present day were placed before the President. He had access to legal aid only in 2014, two years after the crime. They contended that the mercy petition was quickly rejected, in just a day, without proper application of mind. “How can you say the President did not apply his mind to the mercy plea,” Justice Banumathi asked. “The President did not apply his mind because all the records were not placed before him,” Ms. Prakash replied.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, for the Ministry of Home Affairs, said all the documents, supported by records, were placed before the President for a decision on the mercy petition. It was decided without delay because the Supreme Court itself had ruled that delay “has a dehumanising effect”.
“A quick decision on the part of the President does not necessarily mean he did not apply his mind… We [the President] cannot delay, we should not delay. It will have a dehumanising effect. Whether mercy is shown by the President or whether mercy is not shown by the President, either should be done as quickly as possible,” he contended.
Akshay, another Nirbhaya case convict, has filed a curative petition against his death penalty.
SC Bench refuses to accede to a request by Nirbhaya case convict
29/01/2020, KRISHNADAS RAJAGOPAL,NEW DELHI
Mukesh Singh, one of the four convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape case, in New Delhi. PTIPTI
The scope of a judicial review of the President’s decision to reject a mercy petition is “very limited”, the Supreme Court on Tuesday orally told the lawyers for Nirbhaya case convict Mukesh Singh.
A three-judge Bench, led by Justice R. Banumathi, refused to accede to a request by Mukesh, represented by senior advocates Anjana Prakash, Rebecca John and Vrinda Grover, for perusal of the original files of the correspondence on his mercy petition and official notings.
Justice Banumathi said the court did not want to wade into an “uncharted territory”. “We do not deem it appropriate to concede the request and the same is declined,” the order read. The court would pronounce its order on Wednesday, she said.
‘Relevant records’
Ms. Prakash and Ms. John argued that the government’s affidavit was “evasive” about whether all “relevant records” on Mukesh’s incarceration were shown to the President for an informed decision. Ms. Prakash said the government was mum on the jail records on his solitary confinement. In several rulings, the court had held that solitary confinement for long would be a reason for grant of mercy.
The lawyers said Mukesh had suffered torture and abuse in prison. They asked whether his medical records from the time of his arrest to the present day were placed before the President. He had access to legal aid only in 2014, two years after the crime. They contended that the mercy petition was quickly rejected, in just a day, without proper application of mind. “How can you say the President did not apply his mind to the mercy plea,” Justice Banumathi asked. “The President did not apply his mind because all the records were not placed before him,” Ms. Prakash replied.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, for the Ministry of Home Affairs, said all the documents, supported by records, were placed before the President for a decision on the mercy petition. It was decided without delay because the Supreme Court itself had ruled that delay “has a dehumanising effect”.
“A quick decision on the part of the President does not necessarily mean he did not apply his mind… We [the President] cannot delay, we should not delay. It will have a dehumanising effect. Whether mercy is shown by the President or whether mercy is not shown by the President, either should be done as quickly as possible,” he contended.
Akshay, another Nirbhaya case convict, has filed a curative petition against his death penalty.
No comments:
Post a Comment