[Live Updates] Nirbhaya Case : Delhi HC Hearing Against Stay On Execution

SG Tushar Mehta argues that the law makers did not intend to include mercy plea within the purview of 'application' under Rule 836 of Delhi Prison Rules.

SG Tushar Mehta argues that the convicts can be hanged separately. The Rule postponing the execution till the mercy plea is decided will only apply to that convict whose mercy is still pending. For others whose mercy plea have been rejected can be hanged separately.

SG Tushar Mehta argues that the rule prohibiting separate hangings applies only at the pre-mercy stage. Second proviso to Rule 836 doesn't apply once the mercy plea has been rejected for any of the convicts. 

SG Tushar Mehta argues that the last legal remedy which can postpone the hanging, as per the Prison Rules, is the SLP before the Supreme Court.

SG Tushar Mehta reads out Rule 836 of the Delhi Prison Rules to argue that the such Rules mandates postponement of execution of death warrant only till the SLP before the SC is decided. It doesn't contemplate pendency of mercy plea.

SG Tushar Mehta reads out Rule 834 of the Delhi Prison Rules to argue that the word 'application' in these Rules should only mean judicial applications before the Supreme Court.

There's a deliberate and well calculated design to derail the process of law', SG Tushar Mehta argues.

SG Tushar Mehta submits that the acts of the convicts was so abhorrent, and had shocked the conscience of the society, that their execution can't be delayed. Such a delay would also have a dehumanising effect on the convicts.

SG Tushar Mehta asks the court to interpret relevant Rules of the Delhi Prison Rules, as it goes to the root of the issue.

SG Tushar Mehta informs the court that Pawan has still not filed either his curative or mercy petition. Rather, he deliberately filed a delayed application claiming to be a juvenile.