Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS. 383-385 OF 2011

L.K. Venkat … Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others … Respondents

WITH

TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS. 462-464 OF 2011

Javid Iqbal & others … Petitioners

Versus

V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Although, the parties have made diametrically opposite assertions about  

the atmosphere which prevailed in the State after rejection by the President of  

India of the mercy petitions filed by V. Sriharan @ Murugan and two others, we  

do not consider  it  necessary to  decide whether the support  extended by the  

political outfits and others to those who were found guilty of killing the former  

1

Page 2

Prime Minister  Shri Rajiv Gandhi may impede fair  adjudication of  the  writ  

petitions filed by them warrants  transfer  of the three  writ  petitions from the  

Madras High Court to this Court.  However, keeping in view the fact that an  

identical question is pending consideration before this Court  in Writ Petition  

(Criminal) D. No. 16039 of 2011 titled Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State of  

NCT of Delhi, we deem it proper to exercise power under Article 139A(1) of the  

Constitution.

2. L. K. Venkat and Javid Iqbal and others have filed these petitions for  

transfer of Writ Petition No. 20287 of 2011 titled V. Sriharan @ Murugan v.  

Union  of  India  and  others,  Writ  Petition  No.  20288  of  2011  titled  T.  

Suthendraraja @ Santhan v. Union of India and others and Writ Petition No.  

20289 of 2011 titled A.G. Perarivalan @ Arivu v. Union of India and others  

which are pending before the Madras High Court to this Court.  

3. The writ petitioners and some others were convicted by the Special Judge  

for offences under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and Sections 3, 4  

and 15 of the Terrorist  and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,  1987 (for  

short, ‘TADA’) and were sentenced to death. The appeals filed by them were  

dismissed by this Court vide judgment reported as State v. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC  

253.

2

Page 3

4. The mercy petitions filed by the writ  petitioners  were  rejected  by the  

President of India on 11.8.2011. Thereafter,  they filed three writ petitions, of  

which particulars have been mentioned hereinabove, for quashing the rejection of  

the petitions filed by them under Article 72 of the Constitution on the ground of  

violation of the principles laid down in various judgments of this Court including  

T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (1983) 2 SCC 68, Sher Singh v. State  

of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 344, K.P. Mohammed v. State of Kerala 1984 (Supp.)  

SCC 684, Javed Ahmed Abdul Hamid Pawala v. State of Maharashtra (1985) 1  

SCC 275, Triveniben v. State of Gujarat, (1989) 1 SCC 678,  Madhu Mehta v.  

Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 62, Daya Singh v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC  

61, Shivaji Jaising Babar v. State of Maharashtra (1991) 4 SCC 375 and Jagdish  

v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2009) 9 SCC 495.

5. The petitioners have sought transfer of the writ petitions by asserting that  

hearing thereof in the Madras  High Court  may not be  possible in congenial  

atmosphere  because  of  the  agitation  launched  by  different  political  outfits,  

extremist groups and lawyers and also because thousands of people gathered in  

the  High  Court  premises  and  raised  slogans  outside  and  inside  the  Court  

premises.  The petitioners in the second case have also pleaded that the main  

question raised in the writ petitions pending before the High Court is identical to  

3

Page 4

the question raised in the cases of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar and Mahendra  

Nath Das, which are pending before this Court.   

6. The Government of Tamil Nadu and some of the private respondents have  

controverted the petitioners’ assertion that the atmosphere in the State is highly  

surcharged and fair hearing of the writ  petitions filed by the convicts  is  not  

possible  in  the  Madras  High  Court.   They  have  pleaded  that  there  is  no  

impediment in the hearing of the writ petitions by the Madras High Court and the  

same should not be transferred merely because similar issue is pending before  

this Court. They have also questioned the locus standi of the petitioners to seek  

transfer of the writ petitions from the Madras High Court by alleging that they  

are merely busy-body and are interested in publicity.  

7. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties.  While  the  counsel  

representing the  Union of  India  submitted that  his  client  does  not  have  any  

objection to transfer of the writ petitions from the Madras High Court because  

similar matters are pending before this Court, Shri Gurukrishna Kumar, learned  

Additional Advocate General representing the State of Tamil Nadu took up the  

position  that  the  State  Government  is  not  in  favour  of  transfer  of  the  writ  

petitions because there is no impediment in the hearing of the writ petitions by  

the  High Court.   Shri  Anil  Diwan,  learned  senior  counsel  and  Shri  Jayant  

Muthraj, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners argued that the prayer  

4

Page 5

made in the transfer petitions should not be entertained because the petitioners  

do not have locus standi in the matter and pre-requisites enumerated in Article  

139A(1) of the Constitution for the exercise of power by this Court have not  

been satisfied.  Shri Anil Diwan submitted that even though the issue raised in  

the writ petitions pending before the High Court is similar to the one raised in the  

petitions, there is no necessity to transfer the same to this Court because the law  

laid down in the two writ petitions pending before this Court will govern final  

adjudication of the cases pending before the High Court.

8. Article 139A which provides for transfer of certain cases reads as under:

“139A. Transfer of certain cases.—(1) Where cases involving  the same or substantially the same questions of law are pending  before  the  Supreme Court  and  one  or  more  High Courts  or  before  two  or  more  High Courts  and  the  Supreme Court  is  satisfied on its own motion or on an application made by the  Attorney-General of India or by a party to any such case that  such questions are substantial questions of general importance,  the Supreme Court  may withdraw the case  or  cases  pending  before the High Court or the High Courts and dispose of all the  cases itself:

Provided that the Supreme Court may after determining the said  questions of law return any case so withdrawn together with a  copy of its judgment on such questions to the High Court from  which the case has been withdrawn, and the High Court shall on  receipt  thereof,  proceed  to  dispose  of the case  in conformity  with such judgment.

(2) The Supreme Court may, if it deems it expedient so to do for  the  ends  of  justice,  transfer  any  case,  appeal  or  other  proceedings pending before any High Court to any other High  Court.”

5

Page 6

9. A reading of the plain language of Clause (1) of Article 139A shows that  

the power to transfer the particular case or cases can be exercised by this Court  

either on its own motion or on an application made by the Attorney General of  

India or by a party to such case(s) provided that the cases involve the same or  

substantially the same question(s) of law which is pending before this Court and  

one or more High Courts or before two or more High Courts and such questions  

are substantial questions of general importance.  

10.  There is no dispute between the parties that the question which arises for  

consideration  in  the  writ  petitions  filed  by  V.  Sriharan  @  Murugan,  T.  

Suthendraraja @ Santhan and A.G. Perarivalan @ Arivu, that is, whether long  

delay  in  the  decision  of  the  mercy  petitions  entitles  the  convicts  to  seek  

commutation of death sentence is similar to the one raised in the cases filed by  

Devender  Pal  Singh Bhullar  and  Mahendra  Nath  Das.  In  our  opinion,  that  

question is of substantial general importance and decision thereof is likely to  

affect  large  number  of  persons  who have  been  convicted  by the  competent  

Courts and sentenced to death and whose mercy petitions have remained pending  

for years together.  Therefore, we are satisfied that it will be in the interest of  

justice to transfer the three writ petitions pending before the Madras High Court  

to this Court.

6

Page 7

11. In the  result,  the  transfer  petitions  are  allowed  and  Writ  Petition No.  

20287 of 2011 titled V. Sriharan @ Murugan v. Union of India and others, Writ  

Petition No. 20288 of 2011 titled T. Suthendraraja @ Santhan v. Union of India  

and others and Writ Petition No. 20289 of 2011 titled A.G. Perarivalan @ Arivu  

v.  Union  of  India  and  others  pending  before  the  Madras  High  Court  are  

transferred to this Court.  

12. The Registrar General of the Madras High Court is directed to ensure that  

the records of the three writ petitions are sent to this Court per messenger within  

two weeks of the receipt of communication from the Registry of this Court.

13. The transferred cases shall be listed before the Court on 10.7.2012 for  

final disposal.  Notice be issued to the writ petitioners that their case will be  

taken up for hearing by this Court on 10.7.2012. One set of the notices be also  

sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, who shall ensure  

that the same are served upon the writ petitioners well before 10.7.2012.

14. The Registry is  directed  to  send copies  of  this  order  to  the Registrar  

General of Madras High Court and Superintendent, Central Jail, Vellore, Tamil  

Nadu by fax.  

…..……….....……..….………………….…J.               [G.S. SINGHVI]

7

Page 8

…………..………..….………………….…J.      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]

New Delhi, May 1,  2012.     

8