Constitution of India: Arts.32 and 72 – Writ petition challenging the rejection of mercy petition by the President of India on the ground that the settled principles of consideration of mercy petition were not followed – Contention of writ petitioner that the petitioner’s plea of juvenility was not finally determined and this aspect was not kept in view while rejecting mercy petition u/Art.72 of the Constitution – Held: There is no merit in the contention of the writ petitioner – The petitioner had earlier raised plea of juvenility before the Juvenile Justice Board and after considering the same, the Juvenile Justice Board transferred the petition to the Sessions Judge – Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner as being not maintainable – High Court dismissed the Revision Petition – Special Leave Petition was also dismissed – Therefore, the petitioner was not right in contending that the plea of juvenility was not finally determined by the Courts – The plea of juvenility raised by the petitioner was duly considered and rejected by the Courts – The petitioner further contended that he was tortured in the prison and had sustained head injuries and proper treatment was not given to him – The alleged torture, if any, in the prison cannot be a ground for judicial review of the executive order passed under Art.72 of the Constitution of India rejecting the mercy petition – The contention that the petitioner might not have shared the common intention along with other coaccused and that he cannot be imposed the grave capital punishment were already considered by all the Courts and he was found guilty and convicted – While exercising the power of judicial review, this contention cannot be entertained – Detailed orders were passed while dismissing the writ petitions filed by the coconvicts – Applying the ratio of those orders, no ground made out to entertain this writ petition – When the power is vested in the very high constitutional authority, it must be presumed that the said authority had acted carefully after considering all the aspects of the matter – It cannot be said that the mercy petition was not considered with open mind – Writ petition dismissed – Mercy petition – Administrative Law – Judicial Review.
Epuru Sudhakar & Another v. Govt. of A.P. & Others (2006) 8 SCC 161 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 81 ;
Shatrughan Chauhan & Another v. Union of India & Others (2014) 3 SCC 1 : [2014] 1 SCR 609 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.