- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
[ By Bobby Anthony ]Akshay Singh Thakur, 31, who is one of the four convicts in the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, has challenged his execution in the Supreme Court resorting to a curative petition.He is the third convict to challenge his hanging using such a petition which has effectively delayed the hanging scheduled for February 1, 2020.It may be recalled that the Supreme Court had rejected...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Akshay Singh Thakur, 31, who is one of the four convicts in the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, has challenged his execution in the Supreme Court resorting to a curative petition.
He is the third convict to challenge his hanging using such a petition which has effectively delayed the hanging scheduled for February 1, 2020.
It may be recalled that the Supreme Court had rejected Akshay Singh Thakur's petition seeking a review of his death sentence.
The curative petition is expected to be heard by judges in their chambers and not in an open court. If the curative petition is rejected, Akshay would still be able to exercise the option to file a mercy petition before President Ram Nath Kovind.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had also rejected a petition by another convict, Mukesh Kumar Singh, 32, who had challenged the rejection of his mercy request citing “non-application of mind” by the President of India.
Besides Akshay and Mukesh Singh, two others, namely Vinay Sharma, 26, and Pawan Gupta, 26, are also due to be hanged until death. at Delhi's Tihar jail.
As things stand, Mukesh Singh’s and Vinay Sharma's curative petitions have already been rejected.
On December 16, 2012, a 23-year-old medical student was gang-raped and savagely assaulted on a moving bus in South Delhi. She died of her injuries a fortnight later in a Singapore hospital.