[Nirbhaya] SC Hearing On Convict Vinay's Plea Against Rejection of Mercy Petition-[Live-Updates]

He informs the Bench that the Petitioner has developed serious medical and physical problems. Bench informs him that they know.

Singh says that he has worked very hard on this case. Bench agrees. Singh, “I am grateful that my Lords think so, just that prosecution does not think that way.” SG stands up and says, “Prosecution also agrees that you have worked very hard. We are not denying that.”

“All I hear from everyone is delay by AP Singh, AP Singh. But, we must see that they were tortured. There was custodial torture. That is a ground for commutation.”

Singh states there was a report which shows that Vinay Sharma was placed in illegal confinement for a period of a year.

Singh states that a “bandi register” must also be provided. The Bench asks about what it is. SG informs the Bench that every prison has a bandi register to record information whenever a prisoner is brought in.

Singh, “This is the first time in India that four people will be hanged at the same time. They are not habitual offenders; they are not terrorists !”

Singh goes on to state that the procedural fairness was not shown in this mercy petition. He cites a judgement to support his argument on how fairness must be exercised at all stages of procedure.

Justice Bhushan asks Singh whether there’s any other argument.

“These are all out of petition arguments. You are placing them now.”

Singh says that he is placing landmark judgements before the court now and that they are relevant to the cause.

SG states that there are a few things that must be examined by the court:

“1. Whether GNCTD had all the materials.

2. Whether the signatures were present.

3. Whether they had sent everything to the Home Ministry.

4. Whether MHA with the recommendation-“

SG is interrupted by the court who ask Singh now to argue on the points, to which he responds that as per his RTI application, he must be provided the documents.

“I am not saying that I learnt from the textbook; I am still a student of law. I am still practising; I am not perfect, my Lord.”, says Singh.

Singh cites judgement of Epuru Sudhakar v. State of AP to place his points on the aspect of judicial review.

Bhushan, J again, “Why are you wasting your time? This is not relevant. Immunity, they have not claimed.”

Singh says that the documents have not been supplied and this must be taken into consideration.

Justice Bhushan posits to Singh that this judgement will not be applicable in this case. “This is not relevant; they (the State) are not claiming any immunity in the present case. They have shown the files.”

Singh continues to recite the judgement.