Final Rejection of Mercy Plea in 2012 Delhi Gang Rape Case: Supreme Court Dismisses Pawan Kumar Gupta’s Petition

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi, dismissed a writ petition filed by one of the convicts in the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. The petition challenged the rejection of his mercy plea by the President of India and raised multiple legal and procedural contentions. The petition was heard in an unprecedented midnight hearing on March 20, 2020, and was dismissed after thorough deliberation.

Background of the Case

The case originates from the brutal gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old paramedical student in Delhi on December 16, 2012. The incident triggered massive protests and led to stringent amendments in India’s laws regarding sexual offenses. The trial was conducted in a fast-track court, resulting in the conviction of six accused. The trial court awarded them the death penalty, which was upheld by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. One accused, Ram Singh, died in custody, and another, a juvenile, was sentenced to three years in a reformation home under juvenile justice laws.

Following the confirmation of the death sentence, the convicts filed review and curative petitions, all of which were dismissed. They then submitted mercy petitions to the President of India, who also rejected them. Pawan Kumar Gupta, one of the convicts, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the rejection of his mercy plea and raising additional legal arguments.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner raised several arguments 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’s juvenility claim had not been finally determined, which should have been considered in the mercy plea.”
• “The petitioner had been subjected to torture in prison, and his injuries were not taken into account while rejecting the plea.”
• “The President’s decision was influenced by media reports and public sentiment, violating the principles of impartial justice.”

Respondent’s Arguments

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

• “The convict was given a fair trial at every stage, and all judicial remedies had been exhausted.”
• “The plea of juvenility was raised multiple times before various courts and was conclusively rejected.”
• “The allegations of torture in prison are unrelated to the rejection of the mercy petition and do not warrant judicial intervention.”
• “The President’s decision was based on due legal process, and there was no extraneous influence.”

Supreme Court’s Observations

The three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Ashok Bhushan, and Justice A.S. Bopanna, examined the petition in detail. The Court made several key observations:

“The petitioner’s plea of juvenility has been duly considered and rejected by all courts, including the Delhi High Court and this Court. There is no merit in reopening the issue at this stage.”

Regarding the President’s decision, the Court held:

“The power of judicial review of the President’s decision on mercy petitions is very limited and can only be exercised on grounds of non-application of mind, malafide intent, or extraneous considerations. None of these grounds are established in the present case.”

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

“Alleged mistreatment in prison cannot be a ground for judicial review of the rejection of a mercy petition. Such grievances must be addressed through separate legal remedies.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that there was no valid ground to interfere with the rejection of the mercy petition. The Court also emphasized that last-minute petitions cannot be entertained to delay execution when all legal remedies have been exhausted.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial review of mercy petition rejections is limited and cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
• The ruling underscored that procedural finality must be respected in death penalty cases.
• The judgment ensures that convicts cannot exploit the legal system to delay their sentences indefinitely.
• The Court balanced the principles of justice and procedural fairness while upholding the rule of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision marked the final legal step in one of India’s most infamous criminal cases. By rejecting this last-ditch attempt to avoid execution, the Court reinforced the principle that once all legal and constitutional remedies have been exhausted, justice must take its course. The judgment serves as a precedent in ensuring that legal delays do not obstruct the implementation of justice in cases involving heinous crimes.

Petitioner Name: Pawan Kumar Gupta.
Respondent Name: State of NCT of Delhi.
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: New Delhi.
Judgment Date: 20-03-2020.

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

Download Judgment: Pawan Kumar Gupta vs State of NCT of Delh Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 20-03-2020.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