Nirbhaya: Delhi HC hears Centre's plea against stay on execution of death warrant [LIVE UPDATES]
The Delhi High Court is presently hearing the Central Government's plea against stay on execution of the death warrant in the Nirbhaya gang rape case. Notice was issued to the four death row convicts,Mukesh, Vinay, Pawan and Akshay by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait yesterday.
Justice Suresh Kait of Delhi High Court arrives to hear Centre's plea against stay on execution of death warrant.
SG Tushar Mehta to represent Centre. Advocate AP Singh appears for convicts Vinay, Akshay and Pawan. Convict Mukesh to be represented by Senior Advocate Rebecca John.
SG Mehta begins, hands over a chart to the Court to show the legal remedies that have been availed by the convicts till date.
Mehta speaks about convict Mukesh. Curative petition filed after approx two years, it was dismissed by the Court. There has been delay by the convicts but prompt action by the Courts, Mehta.
Convict Akashay filed his review after three years, Mehta. We are presently awaiting the result of his mercy plea. We were told that his lawyer wants to file some more material before the President.. this is one more attempt to delay the inevitable, Mehta
Convict Vinay files a review, curative after approximately three years. Supreme Court doesn't delay at all. His mercy stands rejected, Mehta.
Convict Pawan has not yet filed any curative and mercy has not been filed. If Trial court order is to stand, if he choses not to file anything, the sentence cannot be executed, Mehta.
Deliberate inaction by one will delay the execution of sentence if their interpretation that execution is to be simultaneous is to be accepted, Mehta
Mehta informs the Court about the series of pleas filed by Pawan to prove that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence.
Rules provide for execution of death sentence. It is the judicial adjudication of a conduct. It was so abhorrent that all three courts concluded that the convicts deserve death penalty, Mehta.
Any delay in execution of death sentence will have a dehumanising effect on the accused, Mehta
There is a deliberate, calculated, well thought of design to frustrate the process of law, Mehta.
Mehta reads the Delhi Prison Rules on execution of death sentence.
Rules stipulate that legal assistance to provided to death row convicts.
The only mandate under Rule is that death sentence after confirmation would not be executed till application for special leave is decided by the SC. If convict has not chosen, till the expiry of limitation, Mehta.
There is no other embargo on stay of execution, Mehta.
As per the Rules, if there are more than one convicts, there can be no execution till all have exhausted their legal remedy ie the SLP, Mehta.
Mercy is an individual jurisdiction. President will not sit in appeal. Simultaneous hanging is there till SC finally concludes the issue judicially, Mehta.
Mercy can be filed after SC concludes. Simultaneous hanging is till Supreme Court finally decides the issue. At the stage of mercy, there is no mandate for simultaneous hanging, Mehta.
When mercy is preferred by a convict, the execution is stayed only qua him, Mehta.
Rule 836 provides for stay of execution qua co-convicts when "appeal or application" is pending. But Trial Court has interpreted "appeal or application" to include mercy as well, Mehta
Mercy is a separate petition. It's not an application or appeal, Mehta
Appeal or application is not before the Supreme Court and does not refer to mercy, Mehta.
The intention is that till final adjudication takes takes, don't execute them, Mehta
By his sheer calculated inaction, an convict can frustrate the order of the Court. This is not the discretion of the convict. He cannot frustrate the object of the punishment, Mehta
Mehta states that the President may decide mercy petitions by separate convicts differently based on facts.
Mehta refers to the application moved by Mukesh for stay of execution.
Mehta reads the Trial Court order.
Mehta reads the Rule providing for 14 days period to a death row convict after rejection of his mercy. On the 14th day, the other convict moves his plea. This is how they act in tandem, Mehta.
Mehta calls Mukesh's stand that he would be entitled to another mercy if a co-convicts mercy is accepted as having "Disastrous consequences". Mehta emphasises that mercy is an individual plea.
Suppose a convict becomes insane .. i don't want to give any idea.. or a lady becomes pregnant, there is no dispute that then there can be another mercy in view of change of circumstances. Acceptance of someone's mercy is not change of circumstances, Mehta.
Co-convicts have to be hanged simultaneously only till the stage of SLP, Mehta.
Change in circumstances for filing another mercy is only with respect to that facts qua that convict, Mehta.
Seven years have gone by and they are still playing with the machinery of judicial system, Mehta.
The convicts are testing the patience of the nation.. the conscience of the nation was shaken. What happened in Telangana is being looked into but people celebrated. It gave a wrong indication on judicial system.. people are losing faith in the system, Mehta.
CrPC mandates that it is the august duty of the sessions court to execute the sentence imposed by it, Mehta.
Mehta reiterates that mandate of simultaneous hanging is only till the stage of SLP, argues that the Trial Court wrongly interpreted 'application' to include mercy petition.
Supreme Court has repeatedly been sounding signals in this case, Mehta concludes.
Advocate AP Singh for convicts Akshay, Vinaya and Pawan begins.
SG spoke of Telangana, Karnataka but i will only argue on the basis of this case.. There is difference in interpretation of Rules, Singh The Constitution and the Supreme Court do not provide for any timeline, Singh
Advocate AP Singh reads the Delhi Prison Rules.
Singh reads Shatrugan Chauhan on the point of 14 days notice to convicts before execution post rejection of mercy.
Judge: What is the limitation to file mercy petition?; Singh: The landmark decision is not clear on that; Centre: Seven days.
Singh says the convicts are Dalits and belong to poor families. They came from small village to Delhi and were implicated, Singh.
New facts have come in this case, AP Singh states as he hands over a book to the Court The book, Black Warrant, contains the confession of one Jail Authority on the point that certain legal procedures were not followed in the case, Singh.
Singh reads excerpts from the book on the "suspicious" death of one of the accused, Ram Singh.
Judge: How is this relevant?; Singh: This is the new fact.; Judge: These are Facts wrt Ram Singh but he is not before this Court.; AP Singh: I am saying part of investigation was not fair.; Judge: That stage is over.
Mehta: This was considered by the Supreme Court.; Judge: I can't pass an order contrary to what has been held. That stage is over.
Advocate AP Singh moves on to his next contention, places on record the data on disposal of mercy plea by President.; Singh: Why the hurry in this case. Justice hurried is justice buried.; Judge: This is not the way. Tomorrow you'll say why was the hearing on Sunday.
Singh now refers to a sting operation conducted on the sole eye witness and assails his credibility. This is the new fact, Singh.
AP Singh concludes. Senior Advocate Rebecca John begins. She represents convict Mukesh.
John says she has two preliminary objections.
John takes the Court through the timeline with respect to Mukesh.
John reads the High Court order in their plea in connection with the first death warrant. She states that the High Court had stated that any grievance with respect to death warrants could not be decided by it.
When I, a death row, was told that I had to approach the Supreme Court, the same rule applies to the other party as well. This petition is not maintainable before the High Court, John.
Centre was present before that High Court Bench as well and they chose not to appeal against it, John.
They are saying that the Jail Rules do not prohibit piecemeal execution of a common order of sentence, they are not saying that it is affirmatively provided for, John.
John reads the Centre plea before the Supreme Court to update the Shatrugan Chauhan guidelines.
They know there is an ambiguity with respect to piecemeal execution, that's why they approached the Supreme Court to settle guidelines on singling out one or two convicts, John.
Notice has been issued in the plea before the Supreme Court but there has been no change in the Shatrugan Chauhan guidelines. This matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court, John.
The Trial Court put the execution in abeyance because it found that it could not single out convicts .. the Centre wanted that clarification and thus they have moved the Supreme Court, John.
The Division Bench of the High Court asked me to go to Supreme Court, they should too. Because they have moved a plea for clarification on piecemeal execution, the law is not clear. The matter is sub judice in a petition moved by them, John.
Union of India was never a party in the warrant proceedings. It was initiated at the behest of the victim's mother in 2018, John.
The State Govt was represented by the Prosecutor. From 2018 till Jan 31,2020, the Centre was not a party. The authority to approach the court for execution is not the Centre but the Delhi Govt. Centre has superimposed itself in these proceedings, John.
It is for the Court to examine why have they done so. Centre has no locus, John.
Whether my review or curative was delayed, Supreme Court did not dismissed on the grounds of delay. They were dismissed on merits. Mercy was also not dismissed on account of delay. So let's get "delay" out, John.
Delay is only an inference which is not made out from the charts.
These are death row convicts who are hated by the society but even they have rights, John
They have woken have now. The State never approached any court for issuance of death warrant. A death row convict will never hasten the proceedings and will avail all legal remedies available to him, John
You cannot condemn me because I am exercising my legal and constitutional rights..When they say delay, delay and that we have been acting in tandem.. they have woken yesterday. What have you done (till yesterday), John
Court to re-assemble in 5 minutes.
Court re-assembles.
John reads section 28 CrPC on Trial Court's power to award sentence of death.
Sentence of death has to confirmed by the High Court, John.
There was one common order of sentence by the Sessions Court. There was one composite sentence awarding me death penalty. Does the scheme provide for de-linking?, John.
Common sentence, Common execution. That's all that I am seeking here, John.
When Centre says there is no prohibition, they know that there is no affirmative power. They must have the affirmative power to execute me singly , John
Even the Trial Court did not separate the case of convicts because bifurcation is not permissible, John.
Why didn't the Trial Court say 14 days for Mukesh (post rejection of his mercy) and others go in? Because it's not permissible, John.
Mukesh and Vinay's mercy has been rejected. Akshay's mercy is pending. There is still no news on Pawan, John
Vinay has to be given 14 days from February 1 when his mercy was rejected, John
Trial Court never said that it is never going to issue warrants. It is saying that whenever the legal remedies are over, update me. What is the hurry?, John
Even as a death row prisoner I have to be treated fairly in terms of Art 21 till I die, John
All procedure, not matter what the stage, have to be fair, just and reasonable, John
John reads a Supreme Court judgment to support her case. I have delayed, I am a horrible person. I have committed the worst crime but i am still entitled to protection under Art 21, John
My mercy as well as of others has partly been on facts, John.
Mercy petition must contain common facts. We were tied together by Section 120B IPC, John
Assuming, President was to pardon one person. To say that that pardon will have no impact on me is absolutely wrong. That's why the Home Ministry Rules say that I have the right to file second mercy. That's why it is important me to wait, John.
My rights are protected and that's why I am pressing for a common execution, John.
Centre was not right in saying that the common execution of sentence was only for pre mercy stage, John
John reads Supreme Court judgment in Harbans Singh case.
If commutation does not take place, all four will be hanged. But can we prejudge the situation? John
What am I asking? I am asking for a few extra days. If mercy is rejected, there is not a single person who does not know what shall befall these convicts. One must exercise caution while executing a sentence which is irreversible, John
"New material" and "change in circumstances" to reassess mercy is not confined to me, it is across the case. I cannot be executed before, John
It is consistently stated that delay in execution has a dehumanising effect. This was used in Shatrugan Chauhan in the context of delay in deciding mercy plea, John
Order dated Jan 31 should not be set aside. No prejudice will be caused to anyone. If everything is rejected, the date is not far away when execution will happen. We cannot circumvent the procedure when life is at stake, John
John concludes.
President has examined the case twice and refused mercy, SG Mehta
I am before High Court in Revision jurisdiction, Sec 482 CrPc jurisdiction.. Centre is the petitioner here. We have joined Delhi Govt also. It is arrogant to ask what I was doing. May be State of Delhi did not do anything. Can i ask what the court was doing?, Mehta
Mehta questions what would happen if Pawan never files any curative or mercy.
My application before Supreme Court in Shatrugan Chauhan has nothing to do with this case, Mehta.
My plea before Supreme Court is that your guidelines are accused-centric. Now we are seeking society-centric, victim-centric guidelines, Mehta.
Tihar Jail has no problem with one by one death, Mehta
The application before Supreme Court is for other, future cases, Mehta.
They have the right to dealt fairly but so was the right of the victim to be treated fairly, Mehta.
Now there's one more round with Pawan left, Mehta.
Mehta reads the Supreme Court judgment in Yakub Memon. I troubled you on Saturday-Sunday. These people troubled the Supreme Court at midnight, Mehta; John: I was not there. Vrinda Grover who is assisting; John: I was there.; Mehta: I mean Memon, not you (two).
![Nirbhaya: Delhi HC hears Centre's plea against stay on execution of death warrant [LIVE UPDATES]](http://media.assettype.com/barandbench%2F2020-01%2F30f99ced-33fb-4e93-98fe-9f66eb923362%2FNirbhaya_Rape_case.png?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
