- 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 ]A Supreme Court bench led by Justice R Banumathi has dismissed Nirbhaya case convict Mukesh Singh’s challenge against the President’s rejection of his mercy petition, stating that a quick decision by the President did not mean there was non-application of mind.The Supreme Court bench, which also comprised Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice A S Bopanna, held that...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
A Supreme Court bench led by Justice R Banumathi has dismissed Nirbhaya case convict Mukesh Singh’s challenge against the President’s rejection of his mercy petition, stating that a quick decision by the President did not mean there was non-application of mind.
The Supreme Court bench, which also comprised Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice A S Bopanna, held that the suffering experienced by death row convicts could not be a ground for commutation of their death penalty.
This implies that none of the four convicts, namely Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, Akshay Thakur as well as Pawan Gupta have any further legal options left and they will be hanged on February 1, 2020 at 6 am.
It may be recalled that they were originally scheduled to be hung to death at 7 am on January 22, 2020.
Earlier, Mukesh Singh had alleged solitary confinement as well as sexual abuse at the hands of jailors and fellow prisoners during his incarceration in Tihar Jail.
Mukesh’s petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. He had sought a stay of the execution of the death warrant after a sessions court had ordered the death sentence to be carried out on February 1.
He had asked the court to call for his medical records, dating back to the time of his arrest and incarceration, which were placed before the President for a decision on his mercy plea. He had also sought for the jail records of his solitary confinement.
He had also moved the Supreme Court shortly after it had rejected a juvenility plea made by another Nirbhaya convict, Pawan Kumar Gupta. Pawan had claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the crime.
Recently, the Supreme Court had also dismissed a petition filed by one of the four condemned men, Akshay Singh, to review its May 5, 2017 judgment, confirming the death penalty.
Akshay, Mukesh Singh, Pawan Gupta and Vinay had brutally gangraped a 23-year-old paramedical student in a moving bus on the intervening night of December 16 and December17, 2012, after which she died of her injuries a few days later in a hospital in Singapore.