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

John informs the court that the SC has issued notice in the plea moved by state seeking a clarification on Shatrughan Chauhan judgment.

'The matter is subjudice, that means the judgment still stands', John argues.

John argues that the state has sought a clarification from the SC on Shatrughan Chauhan judgment because state has no legal ground to base their 'separate hanging' argument upon

John cites the petition moved by the state before the SC, which challenges the law laid down in Shatrughan Chauhan, to argue that the state is relying upon the same judgment in the present application. 

John disagrees with the state's argument that the convicts can be hanged separately. 

John argues that if state has any grievance with the trial court order, it should either move the SC or raise it before the trial court.

John argues by the virtue of the earlier order of the Division Bench of the Delhi HC, which had denied convicts from challenging trial court order, the present application moved by the state is also not maintainable.

John argues when convicts were denied a remedy before the HC and we asked to move to either the SC or trial court, why should the state be allowed to challenge the trial court's order before the HC.

John argues that the Delhi HC had earlier denied the convicts from challenging the trial court order dated 17/1/20. In the order, court had asked the convicts to either raise their grievance before the SC, or approach the trial court

John provides a timeline of how Mukesh has exercised his legal remedies in the present case.

John cites two preliminary objections to the present application seeking a stay on trial court's order