Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Mercy Petition in Nirbhaya Case: Vinay Sharma vs. Union of India (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 14 February 2020
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: R. Banumathi, J., Ashok Bhushan, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.
Can the Supreme Court interfere with the President of India’s decision to reject a mercy petition? This question was at the heart of a recent case where a death-row convict challenged the rejection of his mercy plea. The Supreme Court, in this case, examined the scope of its power to review the President’s decision, especially when it involves a matter of life and death. The bench comprised Justices R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, and A.S. Bopanna, who delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

The case involves Vinay Sharma, a death-row convict in the widely known “Nirbhaya” case. This case stems from the horrific gang rape and murder of a young woman in Delhi on the night of December 16-17, 2012. The trial court convicted Vinay Sharma and other co-accused on September 10, 2013, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 376(2)(g) (gang rape), and others. The trial court imposed the death sentence on September 13, 2013. The High Court of Judicature at Delhi upheld the conviction and death sentence on March 13, 2014. The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated May 5, 2017, in Mukesh and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (2017) 6 SCC 1, also confirmed the conviction and death sentence, dismissing the appeals of the convicts. The Supreme Court also dismissed the review petition on July 9, 2018.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Vinay Sharma and other co-accused, sentencing them to death. The High Court of Judicature at Delhi upheld this decision, stating the crime fell into the “rarest of rare cases” category. The Supreme Court of India also affirmed the conviction and death sentence. Following these decisions, the Sessions Court issued an execution warrant. After the rejection of his curative petition by the Supreme Court, Vinay Sharma filed a mercy petition with the President of India, which was also rejected. This rejection led to the current writ petition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the Supreme Court the power to issue directions or orders for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.
• Article 72 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the President of India to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offense. Specifically, Article 72(1)(c) includes the power to commute a death sentence.
• Article 161 of the Constitution of India: This article grants similar powers to the Governor of a State concerning offenses against state laws.

The Court emphasized that the power under Articles 72 and 161 is a constitutional duty, not merely an act of grace. The exercise of this power is subject to limited judicial review.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that the rejection of his mercy petition was flawed because the Lieutenant Governor and Home Minister of Delhi did not sign the recommendation for rejection.
• It was contended that relevant materials, such as the case records, medical status report, Social Investigation Report, and the nominal roll, were not placed before the President of India.
• The petitioner claimed he was denied access to records under the Right to Information Act, 2005, hindering his ability to challenge the rejection of his mercy petition.
• The petitioner was only 19 years old at the time of the crime, not a habitual offender, and came from a lower socioeconomic background, factors that should have been considered in a Social Investigation Report.
• The petitioner was kept in solitary confinement while his mercy petition was pending, violating Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Others (1978) 4 SCC 494.
• The petitioner alleged torture and mental illness during his incarceration, arguing that prisoners with mental illness should not be executed, citing UN General Assembly Resolutions and Shatrughan Chauhan and Another v. Union of India and Others (2014) 3 SCC 1.
• The petitioner argued that the public statements made by the ministers had prejudiced the decision of the President.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Solicitor General argued that all relevant materials, including court records, medical reports, and the Social Investigation Report, were placed before the President of India.
• The Solicitor General stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs reviewed the mercy petition and relevant documents before placing them before the President with a detailed note file.
• The medical report indicated that the petitioner was psychologically well-adjusted, and his general condition was stable.
• The Director General of Prisons clarified that the petitioner was not in solitary confinement but in a single room with iron bars, allowed to mingle with other prisoners.
• The Solicitor General argued that the scope of judicial review of the President’s order is limited and the petitioner’s contentions did not fall within the grounds for review.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the non-furnishing of records under the Right to Information Act, 2005, vitiates the rejection of the mercy petition?
2. Whether the relevant materials were kept out of consideration by the President of India?
3. Whether the torture and mental illness of the petitioner and non-placing of materials pertaining to his health condition are grounds for review?
4. Whether the alleged illegal solitary confinement is a valid ground for review?
5. Whether the order was passed with a prejudiced mind?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed Mukesh and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (2017) 6 SCC 1* to reiterate the conviction and death sentence in the Nirbhaya case.
• The Court distinguished Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Others (1978) 4 SCC 494*, finding that the petitioner was not in solitary confinement.
• The Court followed Shatrughan Chauhan and Another v. Union of India and Others (2014) 3 SCC 1* to explain the constitutional duty of the President in considering mercy petitions and the scope of judicial review.
• The Court followed Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State of (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 6 SCC 195* to emphasize the need to consider various factors while disposing of mercy petitions.
• The Court followed Satpal v. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 170* to discuss the grounds for judicial review of rejection of mercy petitions.
• The Court followed Bikas Chatterjee v. Union of India and Others (2004) 7 SCC 634* to discuss the limited scope of judicial review of the President’s decision on a mercy petition.
• The Court followed Epuru Sudhakar and Another v. Govt. of A.P. and Others (2006) 8 SCC 161* to discuss the grounds for judicial review of the President’s order under Article 72.
• The Court followed Narayan Dutt and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another (2011) 4 SCC 353* to discuss the limited grounds for challenging the exercise of power under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India.
• The Court followed Maru Ram v. Union of India and Others (1981) 1 SCC 107* to stress that a high authority is presumed to act carefully after an objective consideration of all aspects.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by its limited scope of judicial review over the President’s decisions under Article 72 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that it could only intervene if the President’s order was passed without application of mind, was mala fide, based on irrelevant considerations, or if relevant materials were kept out of consideration. The Court meticulously examined the files and found that all relevant materials were indeed placed before the President, and the decision was made after due consideration. The Court also noted that the petitioner was not in solitary confinement and was found to be psychologically stable. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that the case had been thoroughly examined by the trial court, the High Court, and the Supreme Court previously.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court’s power to review the President’s decision on mercy petitions is very limited.
• The President’s decision can only be challenged if it is made without application of mind, is mala fide, based on irrelevant considerations, or if relevant materials were not considered.
• The Court will not interfere with the President’s decision if all relevant materials were placed before the President, and the decision was made after due consideration.
• Solitary confinement before the rejection of mercy petition is unconstitutional, however, protective custody is not.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the scope of judicial review of the President’s decision under Article 72 of the Constitution is very limited. The Supreme Court reiterated that it cannot act as a court of appeal against the President’s decision and can only intervene if there are clear procedural or substantive errors, such as non-application of mind, mala fide intent, consideration of irrelevant material, or non-consideration of relevant material. This case reinforces the principle that the power of the President under Article 72 is a constitutional duty and not merely an act of grace, and it must be exercised judiciously. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed Vinay Sharma’s writ petition, upholding the President of India’s decision to reject his mercy petition. The Court found no grounds for judicial review, emphasizing the limited scope of its power in such matters. The Court concluded that all relevant materials were placed before the President, and the decision was made after due consideration. The Court also rejected the petitioner’s arguments regarding solitary confinement and mental illness. This judgment reinforces the principle that the President’s power under Article 72 is a constitutional duty and not merely an act of grace, and it must be exercised judiciously.