SHATRUGHAN CHAUHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
January 21,2014
Shatrughan Chauhan
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MINERVA MILLS LTD. AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]NOEL NOEL RILEY VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL [REFERRED TO]
EARL PRATT VS. AG FOR JAMAICA [REFERRED TO]
RAMNARAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
EDIGA ANAMMA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL BATRA CHARLES GURMUKH SOBRAJ VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION:DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY VS. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BACHAN SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB AND MAL SINGH SUNIL BATRA NATHU SINGH KARTAR SINGH AND UJAGAR SINGH SHER SINGH SUNIL BATRA MAL SINGH NIRPAL SINGH JAGMOHAN SINGH UJAGAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KULJEET SINGH ALIAS RANGA VS. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
T V VATHEESWARAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MITHU MITHU SURJIT SINGH SURJIT SINGH MUNAWAR HARUN SHAH KARNAIL SINGH ALIAS FAQIR SINGH JAVED AHMED ABDULHAMID PAWALE VS. STATE OF PUNJAB:UNION OF INDIA:STATE OF PUNJAB:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA:STATE OF PUNJAB:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
MACHHI SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
DEENA ALIAS DEEN DAYAL LAL CHAND MISRA HAZAMOHIDEEN AMAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
A R ANTULAY VS. R S NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
TRIVENIBEN HARBHAJAN SINGH LAL SINGH INDIAN COUNCIL OF FAMILY AND SOCIAL WELFARE GURCHARAN SINGH AND PRITAM SINGH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT:STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR:UNION OF INDIA:STATE OF TAMIL NADU:STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
KEHAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
TRIVENIBEN HARBHAJAN SINGH LAL SINGH INDIAN COUNCIL OF FAMILY AND SOCIAL WELFARE GURCHARAN SINGH AND PRITAM SINGH REP VS. STATE OF GUJARAT:STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR:UNION OF INDIA:STATE OF TAMIL NADU:STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
DHANANJOY CHATTERJEE ALIAS DHANA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
RAVJI ALIAS RAM CHANDRA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
SURJA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
VISHAKA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
SWARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. DHARMENDRA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SATPAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL MURMU VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [REFERRED TO]
BIKAS CHATTERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
EPURU SUDHAKAR VS. GOVT OF A P [REFERRED TO]
SWAMY SHRADDANANDA ALIAS MURALI MANOHAR MIS VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH VS. STATE OF M P [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN DUTT VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED AJMAL MOHAMMAD AMIR KASAB @ ABU MUJAHID VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SANGEET VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
GURVAIL SINGH @ GALA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDER PAL SINGH BHULLAR VS. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA NATH DAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS. MEHTAB S/O TAHIR HASSAN [LAWS(UTN)-2018-4-4] [REFERRED TO]JASBIR SINGH @ JASSA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2021-12-92] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE OF STATE OF CHHATTISGARH VS. SHEKHAR KORRAM [LAWS(CHH)-2022-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY JAIN VS. NARCOTICS DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-231] [REFERRED TO]
YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-7-78] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM PAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-263] [REFERRED TO]
MD. MANNAN ALIAS ABDUL MANNAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2019-2-467] [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM DASHRATH BORATE VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2019-7-215] [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2023-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
VINAY SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2020-2-43] [REFERRED TO]
SHABNAM VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-5-78] [REFERRED TO]
YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2015-7-89] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. V. SRIHARAN @ MURUGAN [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR PAL VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [LAWS(SC)-2014-12-57] [REFERRED TO]
MAHANT SHANKERSAN RAMANUJ DASS VS. STATE OF U P AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-93] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. RENUKA @ RINKU @ RATAN KIRAN SHINDE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-1-70] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2020-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
DR. P.V. VARAVARA RAO VS. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [LAWS(BOM)-2021-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
RENUKA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-1-306] [REFERRED TO]
BIJAYA KUMAR PADHY @ BIJI PADHY VS. CHAIRMAN, STATE SENTENCE REVIEW BOARD [LAWS(ORI)-2016-11-119] [REFERRED TO]
B.A. UMESH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2022-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-70] [REFERRED TO]
PRABAL DOGRA VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GWALIOR [LAWS(MPH)-2017-11-275] [REFERRED TO]
ARELLI ASHOKA BHAI VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-6-104] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP YASHWANT KOKADE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-7-153] [REFERRED TO]
GURVINDER SINGH VS. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER [LAWS(P&H)-2019-1-16] [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (READ.) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-94] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. USMAN KHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2019-7-128] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. MAKHAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2019-7-131] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. ARIF VS. REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2014-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
SRI BASAVARAJ SHIVAPPA MUTTAGI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
SONU SARDAR VS. THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
HOLIRAM BORDOLOI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2015-12-44] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SOVAN SARKAR [LAWS(CAL)-2023-3-68] [REFERRED TO]
NAVNEET KAUR VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2014-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLES UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2015-1-150] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE OF STATE OF CHHATTISGARH VS. JHAGGAR SINGH YADAV [LAWS(CHH)-2023-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
P.SATHASIVAM, J. -
(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 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.
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 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.
(3.)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 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.
(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.
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 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.
(3.)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 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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.