Supreme Court: A 3-judge bench of R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ has dismissed the plea seeking review of the order of the President of India rejecting the mercy petition of Vinay Kumar Sharma, one of the convicts in the Nirbhaya gang-rape case. It said,
“The note put up before the President of India is a detailed one and all the relevant materials were placed before the President and upon consideration of same, the mercy petition was rejected.”
Here is a gist of the grounds raised by the petitioner and the Court’s response to the said grounds:
Non-furnishing of relevant materials under RTI Act
Stating that since this Court has examined the file as indicated above, the petitioner cannot make grievance that because of the non-furnishing of the copy of the documents, prejudice is caused to them, the Court said that in any event,
“the issue with regard to the nature of documents required not being provided under the Right to Information Act would not arise, keeping in view the definite parameters under which the petition of the present nature is required to be considered.”
Lieutenant Governor, Delhi and Home Minister, Govt. of NCT of Delhi did not sign the relevant file
“Upon perusal of the file relating to the mercy petition of the petitioner, it is seen that the Minister (Home), NCT of Delhi and Lieutenant Governor, Delhi has perused the relevant file and have signed the note to reject the mercy petition.”
Non-placing of relevant materials before the President of India and the relevant materials were kept out of consideration
“By perusing the note put up before the President of India, we have seen that all the documents enclosed along with mercy petition of the petitioner and the submissions made by him in the mercy petition were taken into consideration.”
Non-placing of relevant materials – medical status report and the status report as per the mental health of the petitioner
It was argued that torture, cruelty and inhuman treatment and the physical assault were inflicted on Vinay Kumar in the prison, and that he was was suffering from various illness and on complaints of “decreased appetite”, “decreased sleep” and number of other times for “psychiatric review”, “thought disorder” and “weakness”, number of times, he was taken to Central Jail Hospital and the petitioner was given treatment repeatedly. This was, however, not brought to the notice of the President. On this the Court noticed that the medical report of the petitioner along with the treatment and his latest medical report dated 30.01.2020 was placed before the concerned authorities which in turn, was placed before the President.
“In the medical status report, Dr. Akash Narade has referred to the details of the treatment of the petitioner and certified that the petitioner is psychologically well adjusted and he was being provided with regular therapy sessions by specialized therapists and the general condition of the petitioner is stable.”
The Court further reiterated that the alleged suffering of the petitioner in the prison cannot be a ground for judicial review of the executive order passed under Article 72 of the Constitution of India rejecting petitioner’s mercy petition. The bench had said the same thing while dismissing Mukesh Kumar’s plea against rejection of his mercy petition by the President.
Solitary confinement
for security reasons, the petitioner was kept in one ward having multiple single rooms and barracks and the said single room had iron bars open to air and the same cannot be equated with solitary confinement/single cell.
“It is clear from the affidavit filed by the Director General (Prisons) that the petitioner was not kept in solitary confinement; rather he was kept in protective custody which was for the benefit of the petitioner and also for ensuring the security.”
Bias Order was passed on irrelevant considerations
It was argued that bias caused to the case of the petitioner because of the statements made by the Ministers in the Delhi Government as well as in the Union Government which have led to pre-judging the outcome of the petitioner’s mercy petition even before it was placed before the President of India for consideration. On this the Court said,
“The public statements said to have been made by the Ministers, cannot be said to have any bearing on the “aid and advice” tendered by the Council of Ministers of Delhi to the Lieutenant Governor or by Council of Ministers in the Central Government to the President.”
Four people, Mukesh Kumar Singh , Pawan Kumar Gupta, Vinay Kumar Sharma, and Akshay Kumar Singh, are facing execution in the infamous Nirbhaya gang-rape and murder case.
The 23-year-old paramedic student, referred to as Nirbhaya, was gang raped and brutally assaulted on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012 in a moving bus in south Delhi by six people before being thrown out on the road. She died on December 29, 2012 at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore. Besides Mukesh, three others – Akshay, Vinay, and Pawan are facing the gallows for the heinous crime that shook the entire nation. One of the six accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar Jail here.
On July 9, 2018 , the Court had dismissed the review pleas filed by the three convicts in the case, saying no grounds have been made out by them for review of the 2017 verdict.
On December 18, 2019, the 3-judge bench of R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ rejected the review petition of the last convict, Akshay Kumar Singh, seeking modification and leniency.
On January 21, 2020, the 3-judge bench of R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ had dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Pawan Kumar Gupta, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya Gang rape case where he “reagitated” the plea of juvenility.
A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board and was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term. Two of the convicts are yet to file curative petitions before the Supreme Court.
Another accused, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in Tihar Jail in March 2013 during the trial. Another convict, who was a minor at the time of the crime, was sent to a reform facility and released after three years of the crime.
[Vinay Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 196, decided on 14.02.2020]
