Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Mercy Petition: Akshay Kumar Singh v. Union of India (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 19 March 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 197

Judges: R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, A.S. Bopanna, JJ.

Can the Supreme Court interfere with the President of India’s decision to reject a mercy petition? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a death row convict. This judgment clarifies the limited scope of judicial review in such matters, emphasizing the high constitutional authority of the President’s decision.

The Supreme Court, in this case, examined a petition challenging the President’s rejection of a mercy plea. The core issue was whether the court could review the President’s decision, and if so, under what circumstances. The bench, comprising Justices R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, and A.S. Bopanna, delivered a unanimous judgment, outlining the boundaries of judicial intervention in mercy petition cases. The majority opinion was authored by Justice R. Banumathi.

Case Background

The petitioner, Akshay Kumar Singh, a death row convict, had submitted a mercy petition to the President of India on 31 January 2020. This initial petition was deemed incomplete. Subsequently, the petitioner’s counsel sent a letter on 1 February 2020. A second mercy petition was filed on 18 March 2020, which was rejected by the President on 19 March 2020. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition.

The petitioner sought judicial review of the President’s decision, arguing that the rejection was flawed and violated settled principles for considering mercy petitions. He also raised concerns about his treatment in prison, including allegations of solitary confinement and torture, as well as the influence of media reports on the decision-making process. The petitioner also brought up the divorce petition filed by his wife, arguing that the execution of his death warrant would affect her.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Article 72 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the President to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offense. The Court also cited its earlier rulings in Epuru Sudhakar and Another v. Govt. of A.P. and Others [2006 (8) SCC 161] and Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 1], which established the limited scope of judicial review in cases involving the President’s decision on mercy petitions.

In Epuru Sudhakar, the Supreme Court laid down the grounds on which the President’s order can be challenged:

• (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.

The Court reiterated that these are the only grounds on which the President’s decision can be reviewed.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that the rejection of his mercy petition was a miscarriage of justice.
• He claimed he was kept in solitary confinement, violating the principles laid down in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Ors. [(1978) 4 SCC 494].
• The petitioner alleged he was tortured in prison and provided details of the treatment and medication he received.
• He contended that media interviews by persons in authority influenced the President’s decision to reject his mercy petition.
• The petitioner also highlighted that his wife had filed a divorce petition and that executing the death warrant would affect her.
• The petitioner also argued that the injuries sustained by another convict, Pawan Kumar Gupta, and the treatment given to him were relevant considerations.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent contended that the President of India had applied his mind to the mercy petition and there was no ground to interfere with the decision.
• The respondent argued that the alleged torture in prison could not be a ground for review of the President’s decision.
• The respondent submitted that the President of India, being the highest constitutional authority, could not be influenced by media reports.
• The respondent argued that the divorce petition filed by the petitioner’s wife and petitions filed before the Lieutenant Governor and Chief Minister of Delhi were not grounds for reviewing the President’s decision.
• The respondent submitted that the injuries sustained by another convict were not relevant to the petitioner’s case.

The petitioner’s arguments focused on procedural and factual irregularities, claiming that the President’s decision was influenced by extraneous factors and that his fundamental rights were violated. The respondent, on the other hand, emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in such matters and the President’s constitutional authority.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the Court was:

• Whether the rejection of the mercy petition by the President of India was subject to judicial review, and if so, whether the grounds raised by the petitioner warranted such review.

The sub-issues that the court dealt with were:

• Whether the President had applied his mind to the mercy petition.
• Whether the alleged torture of the petitioner in prison was a valid ground for review.
• Whether media interviews influenced the President’s decision.
• Whether the divorce petition filed by the petitioner’s wife and petitions filed before other authorities were relevant considerations.
• Whether the injuries sustained by another convict were relevant to the case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Ors. [(1978) 4 SCC 494] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the petitioner regarding solitary confinement.
• Epuru Sudhakar and Another v. Govt. of A.P. and Others [2006 (8) SCC 161] – Supreme Court of India: This case laid down the grounds for judicial review of the President’s decision on mercy petitions.
• Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 1] – Supreme Court of India: This case followed the principles laid down in Epuru Sudhakar.
• Article 72 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the President to grant pardons, reprieves, etc.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the President’s decision to reject the mercy petition. The Court found no grounds to hold that the President did not apply his mind to the matter or that the decision was influenced by extraneous factors. The Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review in such matters is very limited.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Ors. [(1978) 4 SCC 494]: The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s reliance on this case regarding solitary confinement but held that it was not a ground for reviewing the President’s decision on the mercy petition.
• Epuru Sudhakar and Another v. Govt. of A.P. and Others [2006 (8) SCC 161]: The Court heavily relied on this case, reiterating the limited grounds for judicial review of the President’s decision. The grounds for review were limited to (a) non-application of mind, (b) mala fide, (c) extraneous or irrelevant considerations, (d) keeping out of relevant materials, and (e) arbitrariness.
• Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 1]: The Court followed this case, which upheld the principles laid down in Epuru Sudhakar.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the principle of limited judicial review in matters involving the President’s exercise of constitutional powers. The Court emphasized that the President’s decision is not to be lightly interfered with and that the grounds for judicial review are strictly limited to those laid down in Epuru Sudhakar. The Court’s reasoning focused on upholding the constitutional scheme and the high office of the President.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the factual aspects of the case. The Court focused on the constitutional and legal framework governing the President’s power to grant mercy and the limitations on judicial review.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them as they did not fall within the limited grounds for judicial review established in Epuru Sudhakar. The final decision was based on a strict adherence to established legal principles and the constitutional framework.

The Court stated, “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.” The Court also noted, “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 by such interviews reported in the newspapers.” Finally, the Court concluded, “Applying those orders, we do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition warranting any judicial review of the rejection of the order of the Mercy Petition by the President of India.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review in cases involving the President’s decision on mercy petitions.
• The grounds for challenging the President’s decision are restricted to non-application of mind, mala fide, extraneous considerations, keeping out of relevant materials, and arbitrariness.
• Allegations of torture in prison, media influence, and personal circumstances are not valid grounds for reviewing the President’s decision.
• This judgment reinforces the constitutional authority of the President in matters of mercy petitions.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the judicial review of the President’s decision on mercy petitions is limited to the grounds specified in Epuru Sudhakar. This judgment does not change the previous position of law, but rather reinforces it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Akshay Kumar Singh, upholding the President’s decision to reject his mercy petition. The Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in such matters and found no grounds to interfere with the President’s decision. The judgment underscores the high constitutional authority of the President and the strict limitations on judicial intervention in mercy petition cases.

Category

Parent category: Constitutional Law

Child categories: Article 72, Judicial Review, Mercy Petition

Parent category: Criminal Law

Child categories: Death Penalty, Prison Law

Parent category: Article 72, Constitution of India

Child categories: Judicial Review of Article 72

FAQ

Q: Can the Supreme Court review the President’s decision on a mercy petition?

A: Yes, but the scope of judicial review is very limited. The court can only interfere if the President’s decision was made without application of mind, is mala fide, based on extraneous considerations, ignores relevant materials, or is arbitrary.

Q: What grounds did the petitioner raise to challenge the President’s decision?

A: The petitioner alleged miscarriage of justice, solitary confinement, torture in prison, media influence on the decision, and the impact of his wife’s divorce petition. However, the Court did not find these grounds sufficient to warrant judicial review.

Q: What does this judgment mean for future mercy petition cases?

A: This judgment reinforces the principle that the President’s decision on mercy petitions is not to be lightly interfered with. The courts will only intervene in exceptional cases where the President’s decision is clearly flawed based on the limited grounds specified in Epuru Sudhakar.