Nirbhaya Case: The Centre and the Delhi government has challenged the trial court's January 31 order staying "till further orders" the execution of all the four convicts in the case. (Photo Credit: Composite Image)
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday while pronouncing order on the Centre's plea challenging stay on execution of the four convicts in the Nirbhaya gang-rape and murder case said the prison rules do not state that if mercy petition of one convict is pending, the execution of the other convicts can take place. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait had on February 2 reserved order on the Centre's plea after holding special hearing on Saturday and Sunday.
The Centre and the Delhi government has challenged the trial court's January 31 order staying "till further orders" the execution of all the four convicts in the case -- Mukesh Kumar Singh (32), Pawan Gupta (25), Vinay Kumar Sharma (26) and Akshay Kumar (31), who are lodged in Tihar Jail.
On Tuesday, Nirbhaya's parents urged the Delhi High Court to expeditiously decide the Centre's plea challenging stay on execution of the four convicts in the case of their daughter's gang rape and murder.
Advocate Jitendra Jha, representing the parents of Nirbhaya, given name of the victim, said he mentioned the matter before the court for early disposal of the government's plea.
The trial court on January 17 issued black warrants for the second time for the execution of all the four convicts in the case. Earlier, on January 7, the court had fixed January 22 as the hanging date. On January 31 the court again stayed the execution as the counsel for three convicts -- Pawan, Vinay and Akshay -- urged it to adjourn the matter "sine die" saying their legal remedies were yet to be exhausted.
While the mercy pleas of Mukesh and Vinay have been rejected by the President, Pawan has not yet filed it. Akshay's mercy plea was filed on February 1 and is pending.
The Centre and Delhi government challenged the trial court's order staying the execution.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing them, had contended that it was a deliberate and calculated design of the convicts to "frustrate mandate of law" by getting their execution delayed and they were not entitled to any more time.