REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 55 OF 2013
Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. .... Petitioner (s)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. .... Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 34 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 56 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 136 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 139 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 141 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 132 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 187 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 188 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 190 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 191 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 192 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 193 OF 2013
J U D G M E N T
P.Sathasivam, CJI.
1) Our Constitution is highly valued for its articulation.
One such astute drafting is Article 21 of the Constitution
which postulates that every human being has inherent right
to life and mandates that no person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to the procedure 2
established by law. Over the span of years, this Court has
expanded the horizon of ‘right to life’ guaranteed under the
Constitution to balance with the progress of human life.
This case provides yet another momentous occasion, where
this Court is called upon to decide whether it will be in
violation of Article 21, amongst other provisions, to execute
the levied death sentence on the accused notwithstanding
the existence of supervening circumstances. Let us examine
the supervening circumstances of each individual case to
arrive at a coherent decision.
2) All the above writ petitions, under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, have been filed either by the convicts,
who were awarded death sentence or by their family
members or by public-spirited bodies like People’s Union for
Democratic Rights (PUDR) based on the rejection of mercy
petitions by the Governor and the President of India.
3) In all the writ petitions, the main prayer consistently
relates to the issuance of a writ of declaration declaring that
execution of sentence of death pursuant to the rejection of
the mercy petitions by the President of India is
unconstitutional and to set aside the death sentence 3
imposed upon them by commuting the same to
imprisonment for life. Further, it is also prayed for
declaring the order passed by the Governor/President of
India rejecting their respective mercy petitions as illegal and
unenforceable. In view of the similarity of the reliefs sought
for in all the writ petitions, we are not reproducing every
prayer hereunder, however, while dealing with individual
claims, we shall discuss factual details, the reliefs sought
for and the grounds urged in support of their claim at the
appropriate place. Besides, in the writ petition filed by
PUDR, PUDR prayed for various directions in respect of
procedure to be followed while considering the mercy
petitions, and in general for protection of rights of the death
row convicts. We shall discuss discretely the aforesaid
prayers in the ensuing paragraphs.
4) Heard Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Mr. Anand Grover, Mr. R.
Basant, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel and
Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor
General, Mr. L.N. Rao, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned
Additional Solicitor Generals, Mr. V.C. Mishra, learned 4
Advocate General, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Ms. Anitha
Shenoy, Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Mr. C.D. Singh, learned counsel
and Mr. Manjit Singh, Additional Advocate General for the
respondents. We also heard Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, learned
senior counsel as amicus curiae.
5) Before considering the merits of the claim of individual
case, it is essential to deliberate on certain vital points of
law that will be incidental and decisive for determining the
case at hand.
Maintainability of the Petitions
6) Before we advert to the issue of maintainability of the
petitions, it is pertinent to grasp the significance of Article
32 as foreseen by Dr. Ambedkar, the principal architect of
the Indian Constitution. His words were appositely
reiterated in Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union of
India and Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 625 as follows:-
“87. ….If I was asked to name any particular Article in this
Constitution as the most important – an Article without which
this Constitution would be a nullity – I could not refer to any
other Article except this one. It is the very soul of the
Constitution and the very heart of it.” (emphasis supplied) 5
The fundamental right to move this Court can, therefore, be
appropriately described as the corner-stone of the
democratic edifice raised by the Constitution. At the same
time, this Court, in A.R Antulay vs. Union of India (1988)
2 SCC 602, clarified and pronounced that any writ petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity
of the order or judgment passed by this Court as nullity or
otherwise incorrect cannot be entertained. In this light, let
us examine the maintainability of these petitions.
7) The aforesaid petitions, under Article 32 of the
Constitution, seek relief against alleged infringement of
certain fundamental rights on account of failure on the part
of the executive to dispose of the mercy petitions filed under
Article 72/161 of the Constitution within a reasonable time.
8) At the outset, the petitioners herein justly elucidated
that they are not challenging the final verdict of this Court
wherein death sentence was imposed. In fact, they asserted
in their respective petitions that if the sentence had been
executed then and there, there would have been no
grievance or cause of action. However, it wasn’t and the
supervening events that occurred after the final...
To read the full judgment: Click here
