LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Friday, May 4, 2012

guilty of killing the former Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi Although, the parties have made diametrically opposite assertions about the atmosphere which prevailed in the State after rejection by the President of India of the mercy petitions filed by V. Sriharan @ Murugan and two others, we do not consider it necessary to decide whether the support extended by the political outfits and others to those who were found guilty of killing the former Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi may impede fair adjudication of the writ petitions filed by them warrants transfer of the three writ petitions from the Madras High Court to this Court. However, keeping in view the fact that an identical question is pending consideration before this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) D. No. 16039 of 2011 titled Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State of NCT of Delhi, we deem it proper to exercise power under Article 139A(1) of the Constitution. 2. L. K. Venkat and Javid Iqbal and others have filed these petitions for transfer of Writ Petition No. 20287 of 2011 titled V. Sriharan @ Murugan v. Union of India and others, Writ Petition No. 20288 of 2011 titled T. Suthendraraja @ Santhan v. Union of India and others and Writ Petition No. 20289 of 2011 titled A.G. Perarivalan @ Arivu v. Union of India and others which are pending before the Madras High Court to this Court. In the result, the transfer petitions are allowed and Writ Petition No. 20287 of 2011 titled V. Sriharan @ Murugan v. Union of India and others, Writ Petition No. 20288 of 2011 titled T. Suthendraraja @ Santhan v. Union of India and others and Writ Petition No. 20289 of 2011 titled A.G. Perarivalan @ Arivu v. Union of India and others pending before the Madras High Court are transferred to this Court. 12. The Registrar General of the Madras High Court is directed to ensure that the records of the three writ petitions are sent to this Court per messenger within two weeks of the receipt of communication from the Registry of this Court. 13. The transferred cases shall be listed before the Court on 10.7.2012 for final disposal. Notice be issued to the writ petitioners that their case will be taken up for hearing by this Court on 10.7.2012. One set of the notices be also sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, who shall ensure that the same are served upon the writ petitioners well before 10.7.2012. 14. The Registry is directed to send copies of this order to the Registrar General of Madras High Court and Superintendent, Central Jail, Vellore, Tamil Nadu by fax.


                                                              NON-REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
              TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS. 383-385 OF 2011


L.K. Venkat                                              … Petitioner
                                   Versus
Union of India and others                                     … Respondents
                                    WITH
              TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS. 462-464 OF 2011
Javid Iqbal & others                                     … Petitioners
                                   Versus
V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others                         … Respondents

                               J U D G M E N T
G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1.    Although, the parties  have  made  diametrically  opposite  assertions
about the atmosphere which prevailed in the State  after  rejection  by  the
President of India of the mercy petitions filed by  V.  Sriharan  @  Murugan
and two others, we do not  consider  it  necessary  to  decide  whether  the
support extended by the political outfits  and  others  to  those  who  were
found guilty of killing the former Prime  Minister  Shri  Rajiv  Gandhi  may
impede fair adjudication of  the  writ  petitions  filed  by  them  warrants
transfer of the three writ petitions from the  Madras  High  Court  to  this
Court.  However, keeping in view the fact  that  an  identical  question  is
pending consideration before this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal)  D.  No.
16039 of 2011 titled Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State of  NCT  of  Delhi,
we  deem  it  proper  to  exercise  power  under  Article  139A(1)  of   the
Constitution.

2.    L. K. Venkat and Javid Iqbal and others  have  filed  these  petitions
for transfer of Writ Petition  No.  20287  of  2011  titled  V.  Sriharan  @
Murugan v. Union of India and  others,  Writ  Petition  No.  20288  of  2011
titled T. Suthendraraja @ Santhan v. Union of  India  and  others  and  Writ
Petition No. 20289 of 2011 titled A.G.  Perarivalan  @  Arivu  v.  Union  of
India and others which are pending before the  Madras  High  Court  to  this
Court.

3.    The writ petitioners and some others were  convicted  by  the  Special
Judge  for offences under  Section  302  read  with  Section  120B  IPC  and
Sections  3,  4  and  15  of  the  Terrorist   and   Disruptive   Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short, ‘TADA’) and were sentenced to death.  The
appeals filed by them were dismissed by this Court  vide  judgment  reported
as State v. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253.

4.    The mercy petitions filed by the writ  petitioners  were  rejected  by
the President of India on  11.8.2011.  Thereafter,  they  filed  three  writ
petitions,  of  which  particulars  have  been  mentioned  hereinabove,  for
quashing the rejection of the petitions filed by them under  Article  72  of
the Constitution on the ground of violation of the principles laid  down  in
various judgments of this Court including  T.V.  Vatheeswaran  v.  State  of
Tamil Nadu (1983) 2 SCC 68, Sher Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC  344,
K.P. Mohammed v. State of Kerala 1984 (Supp.) SCC  684,  Javed  Ahmed  Abdul
Hamid Pawala v. State of Maharashtra (1985) 1 SCC 275, Triveniben  v.  State
of Gujarat, (1989) 1 SCC 678,  Madhu Mehta v. Union of India  (1989)  4  SCC
62, Daya Singh v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 61, Shivaji Jaising  Babar  v.
State of Maharashtra (1991) 4  SCC  375  and  Jagdish  v.  State  of  Madhya
Pradesh (2009) 9 SCC 495.

5.    The  petitioners  have  sought  transfer  of  the  writ  petitions  by
asserting that hearing thereof in the Madras High Court may not be  possible
in congenial atmosphere because  of  the  agitation  launched  by  different
political outfits, extremist groups and lawyers and also  because  thousands
of people gathered in the High Court premises  and  raised  slogans  outside
and inside the Court premises.  The petitioners  in  the  second  case  have
also pleaded that the main question raised in  the  writ  petitions  pending
before the High Court is identical to the question raised in  the  cases  of
Devender Pal Singh Bhullar and Mahendra Nath Das, which are  pending  before
this Court.

6.    The Government of Tamil Nadu and some of the private respondents  have
controverted the petitioners’ assertion that the atmosphere in the State  is
highly surcharged and fair hearing  of  the  writ  petitions  filed  by  the
convicts is not possible in the Madras High Court.  They have  pleaded  that
there is no impediment in the hearing of the writ petitions  by  the  Madras
High Court and the same should not be  transferred  merely  because  similar
issue is pending before this Court. They  have  also  questioned  the  locus
standi of the petitioners to seek transfer of the writ  petitions  from  the
Madras High Court by  alleging  that  they  are  merely  busy-body  and  are
interested in publicity.

7.    We have heard learned counsel  for  the  parties.  While  the  counsel
representing the Union of India submitted that his client does not have  any
objection to transfer of the writ  petitions  from  the  Madras  High  Court
because similar matters are pending  before  this  Court,  Shri  Gurukrishna
Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General representing the State  of  Tamil
Nadu took up the position that the State Government  is  not  in  favour  of
transfer of the writ  petitions  because  there  is  no  impediment  in  the
hearing of the writ petitions by the High Court.  Shri Anil  Diwan,  learned
senior counsel and Shri Jayant Muthraj, learned counsel  appearing  for  the
writ petitioners argued that the  prayer  made  in  the  transfer  petitions
should not be entertained because the petitioners do not have  locus  standi
in the matter and  pre-requisites  enumerated  in  Article  139A(1)  of  the
Constitution for  the  exercise  of  power  by  this  Court  have  not  been
satisfied.  Shri Anil Diwan submitted that even though the issue  raised  in
the writ petitions pending before the High  Court  is  similar  to  the  one
raised in the petitions, there is no necessity to transfer the same to  this
Court because the law laid down in the two  writ  petitions  pending  before
this Court will govern final adjudication of the cases  pending  before  the
High Court.

8.    Article 139A which provides for transfer of  certain  cases  reads  as
under:

      “139A. Transfer of certain cases.—(1) Where cases involving  the  same
      or substantially the same questions of  law  are  pending  before  the
      Supreme Court and one or more High Courts or before two or  more  High
      Courts and the Supreme Court is satisfied on its own motion or  on  an
      application made by the Attorney-General of India or by a party to any
      such case that such questions are  substantial  questions  of  general
      importance, the Supreme Court may withdraw the case or  cases  pending
      before the High Court or the High Courts and dispose of all the  cases
      itself:

      Provided that  the  Supreme  Court  may  after  determining  the  said
      questions of law return any case so withdrawn together with a copy  of
      its judgment on such questions to the High Court from which  the  case
      has been withdrawn, and the  High  Court  shall  on  receipt  thereof,
      proceed to dispose of the case in conformity with such judgment.

      (2) The Supreme Court may, if it deems it expedient so to do  for  the
      ends of justice,  transfer  any  case,  appeal  or  other  proceedings
      pending before any High Court to any other High Court.”


9.    A reading of the plain language of Clause (1) of  Article  139A  shows
that the power to transfer the particular case or cases can be exercised  by
this Court either on its own  motion  or  on  an  application  made  by  the
Attorney General of India or by a party to such case(s)  provided  that  the
cases involve the same or substantially the same question(s)  of  law  which
is pending before this Court and one or more High Courts or  before  two  or
more High Courts and such questions are  substantial  questions  of  general
importance.
10.    There is no dispute between  the  parties  that  the  question  which
arises for consideration in the  writ  petitions  filed  by  V.  Sriharan  @
Murugan, T. Suthendraraja @ Santhan and A.G. Perarivalan @ Arivu,  that  is,
whether long  delay in the decision of  the  mercy  petitions  entitles  the
convicts to seek commutation of death sentence is similar to the one  raised
in the cases filed by Devender Pal Singh Bhullar and Mahendra Nath  Das.  In
our  opinion,  that  question  is  of  substantial  general  importance  and
decision thereof is likely to affect large number of persons who  have  been
convicted by the competent Courts and sentenced to  death  and  whose  mercy
petitions have remained pending  for  years  together.   Therefore,  we  are
satisfied that it will be in the interest of justice to transfer  the  three
writ petitions pending before the Madras High Court to this Court.

11.   In the result, the transfer petitions are allowed  and  Writ  Petition
No. 20287 of 2011 titled V.  Sriharan  @  Murugan  v.  Union  of  India  and
others, Writ Petition No. 20288 of 2011 titled T.  Suthendraraja  @  Santhan
v. Union of India and others and Writ Petition  No.  20289  of  2011  titled
A.G. Perarivalan @ Arivu v. Union of India and  others  pending  before  the
Madras High Court are transferred to this Court.

12.   The Registrar General of the Madras High Court is directed  to  ensure
that the records of the three writ petitions are  sent  to  this  Court  per
messenger within  two  weeks  of  the  receipt  of  communication  from  the
Registry of this Court.

13.   The transferred cases shall be listed before the  Court  on  10.7.2012
for final disposal. Notice be issued to  the  writ  petitioners  that  their
case will be taken up for hearing by this Court on  10.7.2012.  One  set  of
the notices be also sent  to  the  Superintendent,  Central  Jail,  Vellore,
Tamil Nadu, who shall  ensure  that  the  same  are  served  upon  the  writ
petitioners well before 10.7.2012.

14.   The Registry  is  directed  to  send  copies  of  this  order  to  the
Registrar General of Madras High Court  and  Superintendent,  Central  Jail,
Vellore, Tamil Nadu by fax.
                                                …..……….....……..….………………….…J.
                                     [G.S. SINGHVI]



                                                    …………..………..….………………….…J.
                                               [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]
New Delhi,
May 1,  2012.
-----------------------
7