Constitution of India – Arts. 32, 72 and 161 – Rejection of mercy petition filed by a death-row convict – Judicial review of – Petitioner was convicted in Nirbhaya’s case which relates to the gang rape of the victim – The Trial Court recorded the incident within the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’ and sentenced the petitioner to death – The High Court and the Supreme Court confirmed the death sentence – The petitioner, after exhausting all his remedies filed mercy petition on 14.01.2020 addressed to the President of India u/Art. 72 and Lieutenant Governor u/Art. 161 of the Constitution through the Superintendent, Tihar Jail – The Petitioner’s mercy petition was rejected by respondent no.1- Lieutenant Governor on 15.01.2020 and by the President of India on 17.01.2020 – Writ Petition by the petitioner before the Supreme Court – The petitioner sought commutation of his death sentence inter alia on the grounds: (i) Relevant materials were not placed before the President of India and they were kept out of consideration while considering the mercy petition; (ii) There was a pre-determined stance and complete non-application of mind in rejection of the mercy petition; (iii) the petitioner was under solitary confinement for more than one and half years; (iv) Non-consideration of relevant circumstances likes prisoners’ suffering in the Prison; (v) Non- observance of established rules and guidelines in considering the petitioner’s mercy petition – Held: The Supreme Court has taken the consistent view that the executive orders u/Arts. 72 and 161 of the constitution should be subject to limited Judicial review–The two files containing communications of the Ministry of Home Affairs, NCT of Delhi and the office of Lieutenant Governor and file containing the note put up before the President of India were perused – It was found that all the relevant documents viz. the judgment of the Trial Court, High Court and the Supreme Court, records of the case, details of the review/curative petitions and other details of the petitioner like past criminal history etc., the recommendation of the Government of NCT of Delhi were all sent and placed before the President of India along with mercy petition – Thus, there is no merit in the contention that the relevant materials were kept out of the consideration of the President – Further, it must be presumed where the power is vested in a very high authority, it must be presumed that the said authority would act carefully after an objective consideration of all the aspects – The quick rejection petitioner’s mercy petition is not a ground for review nor does it suggest that there was pre-determined and non-application of mind – Insofar as alleged sufferings of the petitioner in the prison is concerned, as per the settled legal position held in Narayan Dutt and others v. State of Punjab and another, Epuru Sudhakar and Another v. Govt. of A.P. & Ors. and Shatrughan Chauhan and another v. Union of India and others, the exercise of power u/Art. 72/161 of the Constitution is subject to challenge only on the grounds indicated thereon – The alleged sufferings in prison cannot be a ground for judicial review of the executive order passed u/Art. 72 of the Constitution rejecting the petitioner’s mercy petition – Resultantly, there were no grounds for exercise of judicial review of the order of the President of India rejecting the petitioner’s mercy petition.