LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India

Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2020 INSC 103Decided 29 Jan 2020
Writ Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 3334 of 2020
Justice R. Banumathi · Justice Ashok Bhushan · Justice A.S. Bopanna

Background

Mukesh Kumar, a death-row convict in the 2012 Delhi "Nirbhaya" gangrape and murder case, had exhausted his appeal, review and curative remedies, with the Supreme Court having earlier confirmed his death sentence. After his curative petition was dismissed on 14.01.2020, he filed mercy petitions to the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and the President of India, which were rejected within days (President's rejection on 17.01.2020). He then filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that relevant materials were kept from the President, that the rejection was rushed and pre-determined, and that he had suffered solitary confinement and prison mistreatment that were never considered.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that judicial review of a President's or Governor's decision on a mercy petition under Articles 72/161 is extremely limited: confined to grounds like non-application of mind, mala fides, reliance on wholly irrelevant considerations, or arbitrariness. After examining the actual files, the Court found that all relevant documents (trial court, High Court and Supreme Court judgments, case records, and government recommendations) had in fact been placed before the President. It rejected the solitary-confinement claim based on the Director General of Prisons' affidavit showing the petitioner was housed in a single room with access to mingle with other inmates, not in true solitary confinement. It also held that speedy consideration and rejection of a mercy petition is not, by itself, evidence of a pre-determined or closed mind, only undue delay can be a ground for review, not promptness. Finding no ground for judicial interference, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Lesson Learnt

The President's or Governor's power to grant mercy is a constitutional duty subject only to very narrow judicial review: courts will not second-guess the decision on merits, only check that due process (consideration of relevant material, absence of mala fides) was followed; a quick decision is not, on its own, proof of an unfair one.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case