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

'Convicts are trying the patience of the nation. People will stop having faith in the judicial system', SG Tushar Mehta argues

'7 years have gone by and the convicts are still playing with the judicial machinery' - SG Tushar Mehta

'Co-convicts can't be executed separately only till the stage of SLPs before the Supreme Court. It doesn't contemplate the stage of mercy', SG Tushar Mehta reiterates

'Mercy juridiction is individualistic juridiction. President may show mercy to one, while not granting pardon to other', SG argues.

Granting mercy to one doesn't amount to 'change in circumstances for others', SG submits 

SG Tushar Mehta reads out Rule 858 of Delhi Prison Rules to argue that the convicts have been misusing the '14 days notice' rule. 'They're working on tandem, on the 13th day one of them moves his application just to cause further delay', he argues.

SG Tushar Mehta submits that the President can have different decisions on the mercy pleas filed by different convicts; he can pardon some, while rejecting the mercy of others. Therefore, the argument for separate hanging is not unfounded.

SG Tushar Mehta submits that if a person becomes insane after rejection of SLP by the Supreme Court, it becomes a legitimate ground for filing mercy, or for commutation of the death penalty itself.

SG Tushar Mehta argues that if mercy plea is read to be within the purview of Rule 836, the convict will frustrate the very objective of law by either delaying or never filing his mercy plea.

SG Tushar Mehta argues that mercy petition is a different nomenclature from 'appeal' or 'application'. Unlike applications and appeals, mercy petition is not a judicial application.  

SG Tushar Mehta argues that mercy plea is a 'petition', it's not a judicial application or appeal, as contemplated by Rule 836 of Delhi Prison Rules.