Mercy Plea Rejection in Nirbhaya Case: Mukesh Kumar vs. Union of India – Legal Analysis

The case of Mukesh Kumar vs. Union of India is a significant legal battle concerning the rejection of a mercy petition under Article 72 of the Constitution of India. Mukesh Kumar, one of the convicts in the infamous Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case of 2012, challenged the President’s rejection of his mercy plea, seeking commutation of his death sentence. The Supreme Court was called upon to examine whether the rejection was in accordance with due process and whether judicial review was warranted in this instance.

Background of the Case

The Nirbhaya gangrape case of December 16, 2012, involved a horrific crime committed in a moving bus in Delhi, where the victim was subjected to brutal sexual assault and physical violence, leading to her death. The accused, including Mukesh Kumar, were convicted and sentenced to death. The trial court delivered the death sentence on September 13, 2013, which was upheld by the High Court on March 13, 2014, and subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court on May 5, 2017. A review petition challenging the death penalty was dismissed on July 9, 2018.

Following this, Mukesh Kumar exhausted his legal remedies, filing a curative petition, which was dismissed on January 14, 2020. On the same day, he submitted a mercy petition to the President of India. The petition was swiftly rejected on January 17, 2020. Contending that the rejection was arbitrary, Mukesh Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, challenging the rejection and seeking commutation of his sentence.

Arguments of the Petitioner (Mukesh Kumar)

The petitioner advanced several grounds challenging the rejection of his mercy petition:

• Non-consideration of relevant materials: It was contended that relevant documents, including medical reports and psychiatric evaluations, were not placed before the President while deciding the mercy petition.
• Arbitrary and hasty rejection: The rejection occurred within three days, which, according to the petitioner, indicated a predetermined outcome without proper application of mind.
• Solitary confinement: Mukesh alleged that he was kept in solitary confinement for more than 1.5 years, causing him severe psychological distress.
• Human rights violations: The petitioner claimed to have faced physical abuse and sexual harassment in prison, which was not taken into account during the mercy plea review.
• Violation of established mercy plea guidelines: Mukesh’s counsel argued that the proper guidelines for considering mercy petitions, as laid down in Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, were not followed.

Arguments of the Respondents (Union of India)

The government countered the petitioner’s claims with the following arguments:

• Due process was followed: The prosecution asserted that all necessary case records, trial court judgments, and relevant documents were placed before the President before he rejected the mercy petition.
• No solitary confinement: The prison authorities stated that Mukesh was placed in a single cell for security reasons but was not kept in isolation.
• Expeditious rejection does not indicate arbitrariness: The respondents maintained that just because the plea was rejected swiftly did not mean that the decision was made without proper consideration.
• Previous courts found no mitigating factors: The Supreme Court, while upholding the death sentence, had already examined the circumstances and found no grounds for leniency.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court examined the case based on the following key considerations:

• Whether all relevant documents were placed before the President.
• Whether the rejection of the mercy plea was done in a fair and reasonable manner.
• Whether the petitioner suffered undue hardships in jail.
• Whether the rejection process violated any legal or constitutional rights.

After detailed scrutiny, the Court made the following findings:

• All necessary records were available to the President: The government provided documentary evidence showing that trial court records, medical reports, and other necessary details were considered.
• Speedy rejection is not an indicator of bias: The Court ruled that while delay in a mercy petition may be grounds for review, swift disposal does not automatically render the decision invalid.
• No evidence of solitary confinement: The affidavit filed by the prison authorities confirmed that Mukesh was housed in a high-security ward but was not kept in isolation.
• No grounds for commutation: Given the brutality of the crime, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its previous findings that this case fell within the “rarest of rare” category.

Verbatim Court Findings

The Supreme Court, while upholding the rejection of the mercy petition, made the following observations:

“The manner of exercise of the power under the said Articles is primarily a matter of discretion and ordinarily the courts would not interfere with the decision on merits. However, the courts retain the limited power of judicial review to ensure that the constitutional authorities consider all the relevant materials before arriving at a conclusion.”

Further, the Court held:

“Delay in disposal of the mercy petition may be a ground for judicial review. However, the quick consideration and rejection of the petition cannot be a ground for judicial review.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed Mukesh Kumar’s writ petition, affirming the legality of the President’s rejection of his mercy plea. The Court reiterated that:

• The rejection was lawfully carried out with due consideration of all relevant documents.
• There was no violation of constitutional rights in the rejection process.
• The case was among the “rarest of rare” and justified capital punishment.

Final Verdict: Writ petition dismissed.

Petitioner Name: Mukesh Kumar.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Others.
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 29-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Mukesh Kumar vs Union of India & Oth Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Juvenile Justice
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category