Noose for Yakub Memon? Supreme Court dismisses writ petition

The Supreme Court today dismissed the writ petition filed by Mumbai blasts accused Yakub Memon thereby bringing an end to the judicial proceedings in the case..A three judge Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra, PC Pant and Amitava Roy heard the matter the whole day before dictating the order in open court..The Court rejected the submissions made by the Senor Advocates Raju Ramachandran, TR Andhyarujina and Anand Grover and held that the curative petition of Memon was heard in compliance with the procedure laid down in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and there was no legal fallacy in the issuance of death warrant by the TADA court on April 30, 2015..The Supreme Court also made it clear that since Yakub Memon had already availed of mercy plea though his brother, the Court will not interfere with the new mercy petition to the Governor. It held that,.“How that mercy petition is going to be dealt with, we are not inclined to dwell upon the same.”.It, therefore, dismissed the petition..The Court discussed the three main submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioners. The said submissions and the court’s rationale countenancing the same are given below..The last two submissions were raised in the writ petition while the first one had come up during the hearing before the two judge Bench and was never raised in the writ petition. Though the petitioner had filed a new writ petition with respect to the first submission, it was not taken on record. However, Justice Kurian Joseph had, in his order asked the court to consider this submission..1. That the composition of the Bench which heard Memon’s curative petition did not adhere to the procedure laid down in Supreme Court Rules, 2013..Contention: Rule 4 of Order 48 mandates apart from the three senior most judges of the Supreme Court, the judges who had heard the ‘judgment complained of’ should be part of the curative Bench ..Two judges who heard the main judgment had retired. The Bench which heard the review petition was composed of Justice Anil R Dave and two new judges – Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Jasti Justice Chelameswar. However, Justice Joseph and Justice Chelmeswar were excluded from the curative Bench..Memon’s contention was that the interpretation of the words ‘judgment complained of’ in Rule 4 should be taken to mean review judgment and not only the main judgment. Therefore, it was Memon’s argument that since Justice Joseph and Justice Chelmeswar were excluded from the curative Bench, the curative petition stood vitiated..Court: The Supreme Court held that the judgment complained of means the main judgment and Rule 4 of Order 48 provides for inclusion of those judges who heard the main case. In case they are no longer in service, the Chief Justice can constitute a Bench which has to be necessarily composed of the three senior most judges but not necessarily the review judges. The Court, therefore, categorically held that the dismissal of curative petition by a Bench comprising the three senor most judges was correct and not vitiated by any procedural irregularity..2. That the death warrant issued by the TADA before the petitioner filed a curative petition court was in violation of Article 21 and the law laid down in the case of Shabnam v. Union of India..The Court held that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to avail legal remedies and there is no legal fallacy in the issuance of death warrant on April 30. Regarding the Shabnam case, it held that the directions in the same have to be viewed in the light of the facts of the case. It held that,.“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. The curative petition, as 29 has been mentioned earlier, has been dismissed on 21.07.2015. In our view, the purpose behind the said mandate has been complied with in this case. We may explain slightly elaborately. In Shatrughan Chauhan’s case, after the appeal was dismissed, warrant was issued six days later. Indubitably, that was not in accord with any principle in such a case. Needless to say, the same principles would be applicable but in the case at hand, the said principles cannot be stretched to state that the issuance of warrant by the TADA Court would be void on the basis of non-compliance of one of the facets of the procedure. We are inclined to hold so as the petitioner had availed series of opportunities to assail the conviction and as accepted he was offered ten days when the review petition was heard.”.3. That the TADA court granted the petitioner 90 days’ time between the issuance of death warrant and his execution but this time was effectively reduced to 17 days as the executive did not communicate to him the news of issuance of death warrant..The Court said that the mandate is of 14 days’ time as per the judgment in Shatrughnan Chauhan’s case and the petitioner has been allowed the same since Memon’s brother had submitted a mercy petition to the President and the rejection of the same was communicated to Memon on May 26, 2014. The Court, therefore, held the following:.“As far as the compliance of period of 14 days from the scheduled date of execution is concerned, it meets the time limit.”