REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION CURATIVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.

88 OF 2013 IN REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 435 OF 2013 IN WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 14 OF 2011 Navneet Kaur versus State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. ... Respondent(s) ... Petitioner(s)

JUD!MENT
P.S"#$"%&'"() CJI. 1) Navneet Kaur w o Devender Pal Sin!h "hullar# filed the present Curative Petition a!ainst the dis$issal of Review Petition (Cri$inal) No.%&' of ()1& in *rit Petition (Cri$inal) No. 1%+ of ()11 on 1&.),.()1&# wherein she pra-ed for settin! aside the death senten.e i$posed upon Devender Pal Sin!h "hullar /- .o$$utin! the sa$e to i$prison$ent for life on the !round of supervenin! .ir.u$stan.e of dela-

1 Page 1

of , -ears in disposal of $er.- petition. () Considerin! the li$ited issue involved# there is no need to traverse all the fa.tual details. The /rief /a.0!round of the .ase is1 "- 2ud!$ent dated ('.),.())1# Devender Pal Sin!h "hullar was senten.ed to death /- the Desi!nated 3ud!e# Delhi. Thereafter# he preferred an appeal /ein! Cri$inal Appeal No. 44& of ())1 /efore this Court and /- 2ud!$ent dated ((.)&.())(# this Court .onfir$ed the death senten.e and dis$issed his appeal. A!ainst the dis$issal of the appeal /- this Court# the a..used preferred Review Petition (Cri$inal) No. %45 of ())(# whi.h was also dis$issed /- this Court on 15.1(.())(. &) Soon after the dis$issal of the review petition# the a..used su/$itted a $er.- petition dated 1%.)1.())& to the President of 6ndia under Arti.le 5( of the Constitution and pra-ed for .o$$utation of his senten.e. Durin! the

penden.- of the petition filed under Arti.le 5(# he also filed Curative Petition (Cri$inal) No. ' of ())& whi.h was also dis$issed /- this Court on 1(.)&.())&. %) 7n &).)'.()11# a .o$$uni.ation was sent fro$ the 3oint Se.retar(3udi.ial) to the Prin.ipal Se.retar-# 8o$e

2 Page 2

Depart$ent# 9overn$ent of NCT of Delhi# statin! that the President of 6ndia has re2e.ted the $er.- petition su/$itted on /ehalf of Devender Pal Sin!h "hullar. The sa$e was also .o$$uni.ated to the Superintendent# Central 3ail No. &# Tihar 3ail# New Delhi on 1&.)+.()11. ') 7n (%.)+.()11# the wife of the a..used (petitioner herein) preferred a *rit Petition (Cri$inal) No. 1%+ of ()11 /efore this Court pra-in! for :uashin! the .o$$uni.ation dated 1&.)+.()11. "- order dated 1(.)%.()1&# this Court# after e;a$inin! and anal-<in! the $aterials /rou!ht on re.ord /the respondents# arrived at the .on.lusion that there was an unreasona/le dela- of , -ears in disposal of $er.- petition# whi.h is one of the !rounds for .o$$utation of death senten.e to life i$prison$ent as per the esta/lished 2udi.ial pre.edents. 8owever# this Court dis$issed the writ petition on the !round that when the a..used is .onvi.ted under TADA# there is no :uestion of showin! an- s-$path- or .onsiderin! supervenin! .ir.u$stan.es for .o$$utation of death senten.e. +) A!!rieved /- the said dis$issal# the wife of the a..used preferred Review Petition /ein! (Cri$inal) No. %&' of ()1&

3 Page 3

whi.h was also dis$issed /- this Court on 1&.),.()1&. Su/se:uentl-# the wife of the a..used# petitioner herein has filed the a/ove Curative Petition for .onsideration /- this Court. 5) 8eard =r. KTS Tulsi# learned senior .ounsel appearin! on /ehalf of the petitioner and =r. 9.>. ?ahanvati# learned Attorne- 9eneral for 6ndia appearin! on /ehalf of the respondents. ,) ?er- re.entl-# a three@3ud!e "en.h of this Court# in *rit Petition (Cri$inal) No. '' of ()1& >t. ., titled Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., ()1% (1) SCAA> %&5# /- order dated (1.)1.()1%# .o$$uted the senten.e of death i$posed on the petitioners therein to i$prison$ent for life whi.h has a .ru.ial /earin! for de.idin! the petition at hand. validated the 6n the aforesaid verdi.t# this Court prin.iple and held that

esta/lished

une;plained unreasona/le inordinate dela- in disposal of $er.- petition is one of the supervenin! .ir.u$stan.es for .o$$utation of death senten.e to life i$prison$ent. 4) *hile de.idin! the aforesaid issue in the a/ove de.ision# the "en.h was si$ultaneousl- .alled upon to de.ide a

4 Page 4

spe.ifi.

issue

vi<.#

whether

is

there

rationalit-

in

distin!uishin! /etween an offen.e under 6ndian Penal Code# 1,+) and Terrorist and Disruptive A.tivities (Prevention) A.t for .onsiderin! the supervenin! .ir.u$stan.e for

.o$$utation of death senten.e to life i$prison$ent# whi.h was the point of law de.ided in *rit Petition (Cri$inal) No. 1%+ of ()11. 1)) The lar!er "en.h in Shatrughan Chauhan (supra), after ta0in! note of various aspe.ts in.ludin! the

.onstitutional ri!ht under Arti.le (1 as well as the de.ision rendered /- the Constitution "en.h in Triveniben vs. State of Gujarat (14,,) % SCC '5%# held1
B'5) Cro$ the anal-sis of the ar!u$ents of /oth the .ounsel# we are of the view that onl- dela- whi.h .ould not have /een avoided even if the $atter was pro.eeded with a sense of ur!en.- or was .aused in essential preparations for e;e.ution of senten.e $a- /e the relevant fa.tors under su.h petitions in Arti.le &(. Considerations su.h as the !ravit- of the .ri$e# e;traordinar- .ruelt- involved therein or so$e horri/le .onse:uen.es for so.iet- .aused /- the offen.e are not relevant after the Constitution "en.h ruled in a!han Singh vs. State of "unjab (14,)) ( SCC +,% that the senten.e of death .an onl- /e i$posed in the rarest of rare .ases. =eanin!# of .ourse# all death senten.es i$posed are i$pliedl- the $ost heinous and /ar/ari. and rarest of its 0ind. The le!al effe.t of the e;traordinardepravit- of the offen.e e;hausts itself when .ourt senten.es the person to death for that offen.e. Aaw does not pres.ri/e an additional period of i$prison$ent in addition to the senten.e of death for an- su.h e;.eptional depravit- involved in the offen.e.

5 Page 5

',) As ri!htl- pointed out /- =r. Ra$ 3eth$alani# it is open to the le!islature in its wisdo$ to de.ide /- ena.tin! an appropriate law that a .ertain fi;ed period of i$prison$ent in addition to the senten.e of death .an /e i$posed in so$e well defined .ases /ut the result .annot /e a..o$plished /- a 2udi.ial de.ision alone. The un.onstitutionalit- of this additional in.ar.eration is itself ine;ora/le and $ust not /e treated as dispensa/le throu!h a 2udi.ial de.ision.D EEE EEE EEE

B+%) 6n the li!ht of the sa$e# we are of the view that the ratio laid down in #evender "a$ Singh hu$$ar (supra) is per incuriam. There is no dispute that in the sa$e de.ision this Court has a..epted the ratio enun.iated in Triveniben (supra) (Constitution "en.h) and also noted so$e other 2ud!$ents followin! the ratio laid down in those .ases that une;plained lon! dela- $a- /e one of the !rounds for .o$$utation of senten.e of death into life i$prison$ent. There is no !ood reason to dis:ualif- all TADA .ases as a .lass fro$ relief on a..ount of dela- in e;e.ution of death senten.e. >a.h .ase re:uires .onsideration on its own fa.ts.D EEE EEE EEE

B5)) Ta0in! !uidan.e fro$ the a/ove prin.iples and in the li!ht of the ratio enun.iated in Triveniben (Supra), we are of the view that une;plained dela- is one of the !rounds for .o$$utation of senten.e of death into life i$prison$ent and the said supervenin! .ir.u$stan.e is appli.a/le to all t-pes of .ases in.ludin! the offen.es under TADA. The onl- aspe.t the Courts have to satisf- is that the dela- $ust /e unreasona/le and une;plained or inordinate at the hands of the e;e.utive. The ar!u$ent of =r. Authra# learned AS9 that a distin.tion .an /e drawn /etween 6PC and non@6PC offen.es sin.e the nature of the offen.e is a relevant fa.tor is lia/le to /e re2e.ted at the outset. 6n view of our .on.lusion# we are una/le to share the views e;pressed in #evender "a$ Singh hu$$ar (supra).D

11) Aearned Attorne- 9eneral# ta0in! note of the .on.lusion arrived at in Shatrughan Chauhan (supra) wherein this Court held that the ratio laid down in #evender "a$ Singh
6 Page 6

hu$$ar vs. State (%CT) of #e$hi (()1&) + SCC 14' is per incuriam, fairl- ad$itted that appl-in! the said prin.iple as enun.iated in Shatrughan Chauhan (supra)# death

senten.e awarded to Devender Pal Sin!h "hullar is lia/le to /e .o$$uted to life i$prison$ent. *e appre.iate the rationale stand ta0en /- learned Attorne- 9eneral and a..ept the sa$e. 1() 6n addition# it is also /rou!ht to our noti.e /- letter dated ),.)(.()1%# whi.h was re.eived /the Re!istron

1(.)(.()1% fro$ the 6nstitute of 8u$an "ehaviour and Allied S.ien.es# that the a..used Devender Pal Sin!h "hullar was e;a$ined /- the Standin! =edi.al "oard on )'.)(.()1% and the "oard opined as under1
B1.The patient has /een dia!nosed with Severe Depression with Ps-.hoti. features (Treat$ent Refra.torDepression) with 8-pertension with D-slipide$ia with Au$/o@.ervi.al Spond-losis with =ild Prostato$e!al-. (. 8e is .urrentl- re.eivin! Anti@Depressant# Anti@ Ps-.hoti.# Anti@an;iet-# Anti@8-pertensives# 8-polipede$i.# Anit@Convulsant (for Neuropathi. pain) and Anta.id dru!s in ade:uate doses alon! with supportive ps-.hotherap- and ph-siotherap-. &. Patient has shown partial and in.onsistent response to the treat$ent with si!nifi.ant flu.tuations in the severitof his .lini.al .ondition. %.The treat$ent .o$prisin! of various .o$/inations of phar$a.olo!i.al and non@phar$a.olo!i.al treat$ents have /rou!ht a/out partial and in.onsistent i$prove$ent in his .lini.al .ondition in the last three -ears of 7 Page 7

hospitali<ation. The s.ope for effe.tive treat$ent options is li$ited and there/- the .han.es of his re.over- re$ain dou/tful in the future .ourse of his illnessD.

The a/ove report has /een si!ned /- the Dire.tor & Chair$an as well as four =e$/ers of the =edi.al "oard. The report .learl- shows that he is sufferin! fro$ a.ute $ental illness. 1&) The three@3ud!e "en.h in Shatrughan Chauhan

(supra) held that insanit- $ental illness s.hi<ophrenia is also one of the supervenin! .ir.u$stan.es for .o$$utation of death senten.e to life i$prison$ent. "- appl-in! the prin.iple enun.iated in Shatrughan Chauhan (supra), the a..used .annot /e e;e.uted with the said health .ondition. 1%) 6n the li!ht of the a/ove dis.ussion and also in view of the ratio laid down in Shatrughan Chauhan (supra)# we dee$ it fit to .o$$ute the death senten.e i$posed on Devender Pal Sin!h "hullar into life i$prison$ent /oth on the !round of une;plained inordinate dela- of , -ears in disposal of $er.- petition and on the !round of insanit-. To this e;tent# the Curative Petition stands allowed. FFFFFFFFF.FFFFFFFFFFC36. (P. SATHASIVAM) FFFFFFFFFF.FFFFFFFFFF3. (R. M. LODHA)
8 Page 8

FFFFFFFFFF.FFFFFFFFFF3. (H.L. DATTU) FFFFFFFFFF.FFFFFFFFFF3. (SUDHANSU J*OTI MU+HOPADHA*A) N>* D>A86G =ARC8 &1# ()1%.

9 Page 9