Yakub Memon Judgment
Yakub Memon Judgment
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.129 OF 2015
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon
Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Thr. the
Respondent(s)
Secretary, Home Department and Others
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
and
the
communication
No.ASJ/DEATH SENTENCE/222/2015
bearing
O.W.
each
one
of
them
along
with
their
of
death
awarded
commuted
to
that
of
life
writ petition by the petitioner and the stand and stance put
3.
Kurian Joseph, J. as is
patent from his order has addressed at length to the same and
kept the writ petition alive.
5.
10
10.
11
3.
The Curative Petition shall be filed within
reasonable time from the date of Judgment or
Order passed in the Review Petition.
4.(1) The curative petition shall be first
circulated to a Bench of the three senior-most
judges and the judges who passed the
judgment complained of, if available.
(2)
Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, a
curative petition shall be disposed of by
circulation, without any oral arguments but
the petitioner may supplement his petition by
additional written arguments.
(3)
If the bench before which a curative
petition was circulated concludes by a majority
that the matter needs bearing then it shall be
listed before the same Bench, as far as
possible.
(4)
If the Court, at any stage, comes to the
conclusion that the petition is without any
merit and vexatious, it may impose exemplary
costs on the petitioner.
11.
12
(k)
'judgment'
includes
decree,
sentence or determination of any
Tribunal, Judge or Judicial Officer.
12.
order,
Court,
13
14
would submit that the learned senior counsel who appeared for
the various petitioners in the said case always thought of an
amalgam.
The
15
judgment
has
to
be
understood
in
proper
senior
counsel,
would
emphasise
on
the
word
16
16.
as is vivid from his decision has not dealt with the petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution, but directed that the
curative petition has to be considered afresh in terms of the
mandatory rules. We have already recorded our disagreement
with the same. Therefore, the next stage has to be delineation
of the writ petition on merits. As a sequitur, the dismissal of
the curative petition by the three senior-most Judges of this
Court has to be treated as correct and not vitiated by any kind
of procedural irregularity.
17.
17
of
Maharashtra.
On
receipt
of
the
said
18
The
19
20
20.
21
21.
was to be given.
22
23
follows:
241.7. Some prison manuals do not provide
for any minimum period between the rejection
of the mercy petition being communicated to
the prisoner and his family and the scheduled
date of execution. Some prison manuals have
a minimum period of 1 day, others have a
minimum period of 14 days. It is necessary
that a
minimum period of 14 days be
stipulated
between
the
receipt
of
communication of the rejection of the mercy
petition and the scheduled date of execution
for the following reasons:(a) It allows the prisoner to prepare himself
mentally for execution, to make his peace with
god, prepare his will and settle other earthly
affairs.
24
Therefore,
25
learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that on the date the
death warrant was issued, the TADA Court did not hear him, as
a result of which the fundamental right enshrined under Article
21 of the Constitution has been violated. To bolster the said
submission, he has commended us to paragraph 11 of the
decision in Shabnam (supra). The said paragraph is extracted
below :
11) On the other hand, in so far as the
present case is concerned, the stage of petition
for mercy has not yet come inasmuch as the
convicts have right to file an application for
review in this Court seeking review of the
Judgment dated 15.05.2015, vide which, the
appeals of both the convicts were dismissed.
He has also
drawn our attention to the
Judgment of the Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court in a matter titled as
Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR)
v. Union of India & Ors. (PIL No.57810 of 2014
26
27
27.
senior counsel, that this Court has given the stamp of approval
to what has been stated by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Allahabad and, therefore, it is a declaration of law
under Article 141 of the Constitution. It is urged by him that
the principles of natural justice are to be read into the
provisions of Chapter 413 and 414.
In our
28
remedies.
21) We find that the procedure prescribed by
the High Court of Allahabad in PUDR's case
(supra) is in consonance with Article 21 of the
Constitution. While executing the death
sentence, it is mandatory to follow the said
procedure and it is also necessary for the
authorities to keep in mind the guidelines
contained in the judgment of this Court in
Shatrughan Chauhan's case (supra).
28.
under Article 141 of the Constitution and unless the Court says
it is prospectively applicable, it would always be deemed to be
applicable. However, it is also to be seen what is the purpose
and purport behind the said principle and whether that would
affect the issuance of death warrant in this case.
The Court
In this case,
after the warrant was issued, though it has been served on the
petitioner on 13.07.2015, yet he had filed the curative petition
on 22.05.2015 and, therefore, he cannot take the plea that he
had not availed the legal remedies.
29
senior counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Andhyarujina and Mr.
Grover supporting him that the submission of delineation of
mercy petition is a constitutional right as per Articles 72 and
161 of the Constitution of India.
30
The
He was
31
with, we are not inclined to dwell upon the same. We only hold
that issuance of death warrant is in order and we do not find
any kind of infirmity in the same.
31.