The Rarest of the Rare Case

Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. 

State of Maharashtra andOrs. 30.07.2015

The case is decided in Supreme Court of

India, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 135 of 2015 Under Article 32(2) of Indian Constitution Decided on -30.07.2015. In the court of Hon'ble Judges:Dipak

Misra, Prafulla C. Pant and Amitava Roy, JJ.

1.Yakub Abdul Memon convicted over his involvement in the 1993

Bombay bombings by Special Terrorist and Disruptive Activities court on 27 July 2007.

2.Yakub Memon was the brother of one of the prime suspects in the bombings, Tiger Memon.

3.The Court held that Memon's role was limited not only to the extent of correspondence between the masterminds and all other accused, but he was also entrusted with task of handling the explosive bags and for their safe keeping.

4.It also held that Memon was actively involved in hawala transactions for the purpose of facilitating the blasts.

5.Justice P. D. Kode, in a Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) court, found Memon guilty and award him for Death Penalty

FACTS OF THE CASE

6.Memon filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India under Section 19 of the TADA Act and State of Maharashtra filed a reference before the court for the confirmation of Memon's death sentence.

7.On 21 March 2013, the Supreme Court confirmed Memon's conviction and death sentence for conspiracy through financing the attacks.

8.Memon then filed a Review Petition seeking review of Supreme Court’s judgment confirming his death sentence.

9.On 30 July 2013, Supreme Court rejected Memon's application for oral hearing and dismissed his review petition by circulation

10. On 6 August 2013, Memon's brother Suleman filed a mercy petition before the President of India.

11.His appeals and petitions for clemency were all rejected. 12.President of India has rejected the mercy petition preferred by the Petitioner.

The Petitioner contended that by virtue of the rejection of the mercy petition, the death warrant issued would be executed without waiting for 14 days, and hence, there should be a grant to stay.

Trial Justice P. D. Kode, in a Terrorist and Disruptive Activities

(Prevention) Act (TADA) court, found Memon guilty of the following offences on 27 July 2007

Crime and Sentence Death sentence for Criminal conspiracy to carry out terrorist act and

disruptive activities, and murder Life imprisonment for Aiding and abetting and facilitating in a

terrorist act Rigorous imprisonment for 14 years Illegal possession and

transportation of arms and ammunition Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for Possessing

explosives with intent to endanger lives.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appeal and petition before the Supreme Court Memon filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India under

Section 19 of the TADA Act and State of Maharashtra filed a reference before the court for the confirmation of Memon's death sentence. On 21 March 2013, the Supreme Court confirmed Memon's conviction and death sentence for conspiracy through financing the attacks.

Memon then filed a Review Petition seeking review of Supreme Court’s judgment confirming his death sentence. On 30 July 2013, Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justice BS Chauhan rejected Memon's application for oral hearing and dismissed his review petition by circulation.

On 6 August 2013, Memon's brother Suleman filed a mercy petition before the President of India

1. Internal Aid Definition2. Equity of the statute rule

RELATION BETWEEN THE CASE AND INTERPRETATION OF

STATUE

'Judgment' is defined under the Supreme Court Rules,

2013 under Order I Rule 2(k) as follows:-‘Judgment' includes decree, order, sentence or determination of any Court, Tribunal, Judge or Judicial Officer.” Therefore, in terms of the Judgment as defined under the Rules, a Curative Petition has to be circulated to a Bench of three senior-most Judges of this Hon'ble Court and the Judges who passed the Judgment complained of, if available.

In the Review Petition of the case Judgment, apparently, in terms of the definition of 'judgment' under the Supreme Court Rules. Thus, it is found that the procedure prescribed under the law has been violated while dealing with the Curative Petition and that too, dealing with life of a person. There is an error apparent on the face of the order in the Curative Petition. The mandatory procedure prescribed under law has not been followed.

Definition

In the judgment of the Shatrughan Chauhan and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors the court said that When the death penalty is given the necessity for grant of 14 days' time after receipt communication so that petitioner can do arrangement for his family members to meet him in prison and make necessary worldly arrangements

The intention of the legislature is to make this rule (granting 14 days when the death penalty is given) is to make arrangement for his family members to meet him in prison and make necessary worldly arrangements.

In this present case the intention of the legislature is satisfied though it is beyond the literal meaning of the text as when the first mercy petition was rejected on 11.04.2014, there was sufficient time available to the Petitioner to make arrangement for his family members to meet him in prison and make necessary worldly arrangements.

2. Equity of the Statute rule

Q1- Whether or not in the facts and circumstances of the present case emerges for consideration on the ground of not granting of 14 days' time from the date of receipt of communication of rejection of the mercy petition ?

Q2- Whether or not in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Curative Petition in this case has been decided in accordance with law?

Question of Law

1. When the first mercy petition was rejected on

11.04.2014, there was sufficient time available to the Petitioner to make arrangement for his family members to meet him in prison and make necessary worldly arrangements. There was adequate time to prepare himself to meet his Maker and to make peace with himself.

In considered opinion, to granting further time to challenge the rejection of the second mercy petition for which have to stay the execution of the death warrant dated 30.04.2015 would be nothing but travesty of justice.

2. The Curative Petition has been

considered by a Bench of three senior-most Judges of this Court of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 deals with Curative Petition and Rule 4(1) and (2) It is found that the procedure prescribed under the law has been violated while dealing with the Curative Petition and that too, dealing with life of a person.

the Curative Petition has to be considered afresh in terms of the mandatory requirement under Rule 4 of of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

1. Shatrughan Chauhan and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2014) 3

SCC 1 It is necessary that a minimum period of 14 days be stipulated between

the receipt of communication of the rejection of the mercy petition and the scheduled date of execution for the following reasons:

(a)It allows the prisoner to prepare himself mentally for execution, to make his peace with God, prepare his will and settle other earthly affairs.(b) It allows the prisoner to have a last and final meeting with his family members.2. Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India and Ors.: (2014) 9 SCC 737 dealing with the said rule opined that in death cases, the matter should

be heard by a three-Judge Bench and the review petition should be heard in the open court by giving maximum time limit of 30 minutes to the convict.

CASE REFFERED

Petitioner appeals and petitions for

clemency were all rejected. Memon found guilty and award him for

Death Penalty. President of India has rejected the mercy

petition preferred by the Petitioner. Petitioner was executed by hanging in

Nagpur Central Jail at around 6:30 AM IST on 30 July 2015.

Conclusion