Final Appeal Rejected in 2012 Delhi Gang Rape Case: Supreme Court Dismisses Writ Petition of Akshay Kumar Singh

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Akshay Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., dismissed a writ petition filed by one of the convicts in the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. The petition challenged the rejection of the convict’s mercy plea by the President of India and raised multiple legal and procedural arguments, including allegations of miscarriage of justice, torture in prison, and external influence on the decision-making process.

Background of the Case

The case pertains to the brutal gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old paramedical student in Delhi on December 16, 2012. The incident triggered nationwide protests and led to significant amendments in India’s criminal laws concerning sexual offenses. The accused were arrested, tried under a fast-track court, and convicted of rape and murder. The trial court sentenced them to death, and the Delhi High Court upheld the sentence. The Supreme Court, upon appeal, also confirmed the death penalty.

Following the judicial process, the convicts exhausted all legal remedies, including review petitions, curative petitions, and mercy petitions before the President of India. Akshay Kumar Singh, one of the convicts, filed a fresh writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner raised several contentions in an attempt to challenge the rejection of his mercy plea:

• “The rejection of the mercy petition suffered from non-application of mind and was carried out in undue haste.”
• “The petitioner was subjected to torture in prison, which was not considered while rejecting the mercy petition.”
• “Interviews given to the media by persons in positions of authority may have influenced the rejection of the mercy petition.”
• “The petitioner’s wife had filed a divorce petition, which should have been considered as a mitigating factor.”

Respondent’s Arguments

The Union of India and the State of NCT of Delhi opposed the petition on several grounds:

• “The mercy petition was examined with due diligence, and the President of India followed all constitutional and legal procedures in rejecting it.”
• “The convict was given a fair trial at every stage, from the trial court to the Supreme Court, and ample opportunities were provided for legal representation.”
• “Torture allegations, even if true, are not a ground to review a mercy petition rejection.”
• “Media interviews given by officials did not influence the President’s decision, as the rejection was based on legal and factual considerations.”

Supreme Court’s Observations

The three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Ashok Bhushan, and Justice A.S. Bopanna, meticulously examined the arguments and made several crucial observations:

“The consistent view taken by this Court is that the exercise of power of judicial review of the decision taken by His Excellency the President of India in Mercy Petition is very limited.”

Regarding allegations of procedural irregularities, the Court remarked:

“The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity, and after due consideration of all evidence and legal factors, the mercy petition was rejected following the prescribed procedure.”

On the issue of alleged torture in prison, the Court stated:

“Torture in prison, even if true, cannot be a ground for judicial review of the rejection of the mercy petition. The appropriate legal remedy for such grievances lies elsewhere.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there were no valid grounds to interfere with the rejection of the mercy petition. The Court reiterated that all due procedures had been followed and that the rejection was legally sound. This ruling effectively closed all remaining legal avenues for the convict.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the principle that judicial review of mercy petition rejections is limited and cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
• The Court reaffirmed that due process was followed in rejecting the convict’s mercy plea.
• The ruling ensures that frivolous petitions cannot be used as a strategy to delay executions.
• The judgment underscores the importance of procedural finality in death penalty cases.

Conclusion

With the dismissal of this final petition, the Supreme Court brought an end to one of India’s most widely followed criminal cases. The judgment reinforces the importance of procedural integrity and timely justice in cases involving heinous crimes. It sets a precedent that once all legal and constitutional remedies have been exhausted, the rule of law must take its course.

Petitioner Name: Akshay Kumar Singh.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: New Delhi.
Judgment Date: 19-03-2020.

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

Download Judgment: Akshay Kumar Singh vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 19-03-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
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 March 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