Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs State of Maharashtra & Others

Case Summary: Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs State of Maharashtra & Others

Citation: (2015) 07 SC CK 0058 | (2015) 9 SCC 552

Case No: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2015

Date of Decision: 30 July 2015

Bench: Hon'ble Justices Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant, Amitava Roy

Final Decision: Dismissed

[Judgment Source]

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=986435

Law Points Raised:

Article 72 of the Constitution – President’s power to grant mercy and challenge to rejection of mercy petition.
Right to 14-day period – Claim under Shatrughan Chauhan case requiring 14 days between rejection of mercy petition and execution.
Article 32 – Writ jurisdiction for protection of fundamental rights.
Procedural safeguards before execution – Challenge based on lack of adequate time and notice.

Ratio Decidendi:

A convict has a right to 14 days between the communication of mercy petition rejection and the execution date for preparing mentally, meeting family, and seeking remedies.
However, this protection must be invoked properly and timely. In this case, Yakub Memon had multiple legal opportunities, including review and curative petitions.
The rejection of an earlier mercy petition filed by his brother (which Yakub endorsed) was not challenged when it could have been.
Filing a second mercy petition shortly before execution does not reset the 14-day clock.

Final Ruling:

The Court held that Yakub Memon was not entitled to further 14 days as per the precedent in Shatrughan Chauhan case.
Execution of the death warrant was upheld and no stay granted.
Writ petition dismissed.

Relevant Paragraph Highlights:

Paras 4–5: Grounds raised after mercy rejection and claim of 14-day window.
Paras 6–8: Timeline of mercy and curative petitions.
Paras 12–13: Court’s reasoning for rejecting stay on execution.
Para 14: Final conclusion dismissing the petition.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed Yakub Memon’s last-minute writ petition challenging the timing of his execution post-mercy rejection. The Court upheld that Memon had availed sufficient legal remedies and his rights were not denied, concluding that further delay would be a travesty of justice. This case is significant in reaffirming the limits of procedural protection in mercy petition jurisprudence under Article 72.