Abhinav Mishra| Kirit P. Mehta School of Law| 10th June 2020
Case Name: Akshay Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors
Introduction
This writ petition primarily deals with the issue of judicial review of the order of the president or the governor in the present case the petitioner’s mercy petition was denied by the President. The Bench comprises R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhusan, and A.S Bopanna.
Facts
- The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian constitution challenging the order of rejection of his mercy petition by the President of India.
- The petitioner sent the mercy petition on 18/03/2020 which was rejected on 19/03/2020.
- The petitioner has argued that persons in position have given interviews to media and press which influenced the President to reject his mercy petition. The petitioner also highlighted that he was being ill treated in the prison that he was kept in solitary confinement in violation of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Ors and that he was tortured in the prison.
Laws and Rules Used
Article 32, 72,161 of the Indian Constitution.
Holding
The SC dismissed writ petition challenging the order of rejection of mercy petition by the President stating that none of the contention argued by the petitioner warrant a judicial review of the order of rejection of the mercy petition.
Brief Analysis
The SC reiterated its view that the power of judicial review if the decision by the President regarding mercy petitions is very limited. The court referred to Epuru Sudhakar and Another v. Govt. of A.P and Others 2006 (8) SCC 161 in which it was held that Judicial review of order of President or the Governor under Art. 72 or Art. 161 is available in cases where (i) Order passed without application of mind, (ii) order is mala fide, (iii)order passed on irrelevant consideration or relevant material kept out of consideration (iv) Order is arbitrary.
The court considered the issues raised by the petitioner and did not find any ground to hold that the president passed the order without the application of mind, also the alleged torture cannot be ground for a judicial review. Regarding the grounds that the president was influenced by media interviews the court said that when the decision has been taken by the highest constitutional authority it cannot be said that such decision was influenced by media interviews. Thus the petition was dismissed.
Conclusion
The SC rejected the mercy petition upholding that the exercise of judicial review power on President or Governor’s order should only be on the grounds incorporated in the Epuru Sudhakar. The court has been time and time again consistent with the view that the scope of judicial review regarding orders by the President or Governor regarding mercy petition is very limited.
Leave a Reply