Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
11. In the light of the above pronouncement, we have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the grounds raised in the writ petition.
12. In this writ petition, primarily the writ petitioner has again raised the plea of juvenility by contending that his date of birth is 08.10.1996 and that he was a juvenile on the date of the incident on 16.12.2012. The petitioner relies upon the School Certificate issued by the School, namely, Gayatri Bal Sanskar Shala, Narayanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, which was issued on 12.12.2019. The learned counsel Dr. A.P. Singh submitted that the petitioner’s claim of juvenility has not been finally determined based on the above certificate issued by the said School on 12.12.2019.
13. We do not find merit in the above contention of the learned counsel Dr. A.P. Singh. The petitioner has earlier filed an application on 30.08.2018 raising the plea of juvenility before the Juvenile Justice Board-II, Prayas, Delhi, and after considering the same, the Juvenile Justice Board transferred the petition to the District & Sessions Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi, vide order dated 14.09.2018. By order dated 21.12.2018, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner as being not maintainable.
14. Challenging that order, the petitioner has filed Criminal Revision Petition No.1301 of 2019 before the Delhi High Court. By the order dated 19.01.2019, the Delhi High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition. Challenging that order the petitioner had filed the SLP (Crl.) No.547 of 2020. After considering the submissions of the petitioner, this Court had passed the detailed order dismissing the Special Leave Petition on 20.01.2020.
15. The petitioner is not right in contending that the plea of juvenility has not been finally determined by the Courts. The plea of juvenility raised by the petitioner has been duly considered and rejected by the Courts as noted above.
16. The contention of the petitioner is that due to torture in the prison the petitioner had sustained head injuries and that he was sutured with more than 10 sutures and proper treatment was not given to the petitioner. As pointed out earlier, the exercise of judicial review of the order of rejection of the mercy petition by His Excellency the President of India is subject to challenge only on the grounds indicated in Epuru Sudhkar (Supra) and Shatrughan Chauhan (Supra) and other decisions. The learned Solicitor General has submitted that the petitioner was given proper treatment. The learned Solicitor General also denied PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI the torture allegedly meted out to the petitioner. The alleged torture, if any, in the prison cannot be a ground for judicial review of the executive order passed under Article 72 of the Constitution of India rejecting the mercy petition.
17. Insofar as the contention of Mr. Shams Khwaja that the petitioner might not have shared the common intention along with other co-accused and that he cannot be imposed the grave capital punishment is concerned, these grounds have been already considered both by the Trial Court as well as the High Court and by this Court and the petitioner Pawan Kumar Gupta has been found guilty and convicted.
18. While exercising the power of judicial review, this contention raised by the learned counsel Mr. Shams Khwaja cannot be entertained as a ground for judicial review of the order of rejection passed by His Excellency the President of India.
19. We have decided the writ petition filed by the co-convict Mukesh Kumar in Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India – Writ Petition (Crl.) No..40 of 2020 (29.01.2020) and the writ petition filed by co- convict Vinay Kumar Sharma in Vinay Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Others – Writ Petition (Crl.) No.65 of 2020 (dated 14.02.2020), and Writ Petition filed by co-convict Akshay Kumar Singh in Akshay Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Others – Writ Petition (Crl.) No.121 of 2020 (19.03.2020) challenging the order of rejection of mercy petition by His Excellency the President of India. We have passed detailed orders while dismissing those writ petitions challenging the order of rejection of mercy petitions by His Excellency the President of India.
20. Applying the ratio of those orders, we do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition warranting judicial review of the order rejecting the mercy petition by His Excellency the President of India.
21. As we have pointed out in the earlier judgments in the above writ petitions, when the power is vested in the very high contitutional authority, it must be presumed that the said authority had acted carefully after considering all the aspects of the matter. It cannot be said that His Excellency the President of India did not consider the mercy petition with open mind filed by the petitioner Pawan Kumar Gupta.
22. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Devika Gujral Writ petition dismissed.