Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Mercy Petition in Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi (20 March 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 20 March 2020

Citation: Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 122 of 2020

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

Can the highest constitutional authority’s decision on a mercy petition be challenged in court? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where a death row convict, Pawan Kumar Gupta, sought judicial review of the President of India’s rejection of his mercy petition. The core issue was whether the President’s decision was made with proper consideration of all relevant factors, including the convict’s claim of juvenility. This judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench consisting of Justices R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, and A.S. Bopanna.

Case Background

The petitioner, Pawan Kumar Gupta, was convicted in a criminal case and sentenced to death. He filed a mercy petition with the President of India, which was rejected on 04.03.2020. Subsequently, he filed a second mercy petition on 18.03.2020, reiterating the same grounds. The petitioner’s primary arguments were that his claim of juvenility was not properly addressed, that he was tortured in prison, and that he might not have shared the common intention with the other co-accused in the crime. He also contended that the President’s decision was influenced by public statements on cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner initially raised the plea of juvenility before the Juvenile Justice Board-II, Prayas, Delhi, which transferred the matter to the District & Sessions Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application as not maintainable. The Delhi High Court also dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition challenging this order. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the High Court’s order, thus upholding the rejection of the juvenility claim.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to its previous decisions in Epuru Sudhakar & Another v. Govt. of A.P. & Others, (2006) 8 SCC 161 and Shatrughan Chauhan & Another v. Union of India & Others, (2014) 3 SCC 1, which established the limited scope of judicial review of the President’s decisions on mercy petitions. The Court reiterated that such decisions can only be challenged on grounds of:

• (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.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that there was a miscarriage of justice in the rejection of his mercy petition.
• He contended that his date of birth was 08.10.1996, making him a juvenile at the time of the incident (16.12.2012), and that this claim of juvenility was not finally determined.
• The petitioner claimed that he was tortured in prison, sustaining head injuries for which he did not receive proper treatment.
• It was argued that the petitioner might not have shared a common intention with the other co-accused, and therefore, should not be subjected to the same grave capital punishment.
• The petitioner also argued that the President’s decision was influenced by press reports expressing concern about attacks on women and views against granting mercy petitions to convicts under the POCSO Act.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Solicitor General argued that the press reports relied upon by the petitioner were merely press reports and did not reflect the President’s actual considerations.
• The Solicitor General submitted that the President’s views were in line with reforms concerning the POCSO Act.
• The Solicitor General contended that the petitioner’s plea of juvenility had been duly considered and rejected by the courts.
• The Solicitor General denied the allegations of torture and stated that the petitioner received proper treatment.
• The Solicitor General argued that the issue of the petitioner’s common intention had already been considered by the Trial Court, High Court, and Supreme Court.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the rejection of the mercy petition by the President of India warrants judicial review.
2. Whether the petitioner’s claim of juvenility was validly rejected by the courts.
3. Whether the alleged torture of the petitioner in prison is a valid ground for judicial review of the rejection of the mercy petition.
4. Whether the petitioner not sharing the common intention with the co-accused is a valid ground for judicial review of the rejection of the mercy petition.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in Epuru Sudhakar & Another v. Govt. of A.P. & Others, (2006) 8 SCC 161* and Shatrughan Chauhan & Another v. Union of India & Others, (2014) 3 SCC 1*, which established the limited scope of judicial review of the President’s decisions on mercy petitions. The court held that the grounds for judicial review are limited to (a) lack of application of mind, (b) mala fide, (c) extraneous considerations, (d) relevant materials not considered, and (e) arbitrariness. The court found that none of these grounds were met in this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of limited judicial review in matters of presidential clemency. The court emphasized that the President, as a high constitutional authority, is presumed to have acted carefully and after considering all aspects of the matter. The court also noted that the petitioner’s plea of juvenility had already been considered and rejected by multiple courts. The court found no evidence to suggest that the President’s decision was made without application of mind or on extraneous considerations.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The ratio of fact to law is 30:70. This indicates that the court’s decision was more heavily influenced by legal principles and precedents than by the specific factual aspects of the case. The court primarily focused on the established legal framework for reviewing presidential decisions and the fact that the juvenility claim had already been adjudicated by other courts.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review of the President’s decisions on mercy petitions.
• The court emphasized that the President is presumed to have acted carefully and after considering all aspects of the matter.
• Claims of juvenility must be raised and determined through the appropriate legal channels and cannot be raised again in a mercy petition review.
• Allegations of torture in prison are not a valid ground for judicial review of a presidential decision on a mercy petition.
• The issue of common intention cannot be re-litigated in a review of a mercy petition if it has already been considered by the courts.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The judgment reaffirms the established legal position that the scope of judicial review of the President’s decisions on mercy petitions is very limited. It also clarifies that issues already decided by the courts cannot be re-agitated in a judicial review of the mercy petition. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the court cannot interfere with the decision of the President on a mercy petition unless the decision is found to be arbitrary, mala fide, or without application of mind, or based on extraneous considerations or without considering relevant materials. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Pawan Kumar Gupta, upholding the President of India’s decision to reject his mercy petition. The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s arguments regarding juvenility, torture, or lack of common intention. The judgment reinforces the principle that the President’s decisions on mercy petitions are subject to limited judicial review and that the courts will not interfere unless there is a clear violation of established legal principles.