Territorial jurisdiction for mercy petition challenges turns on the executive decision-making process, not the original crime scene.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) was held to depend on the executive decision-making process challenged in the writ, not merely on the place of crime or investigation. A challenge to rejection of a mercy petition under Articles 72 and 161 was treated as distinct from the completed criminal proceedings, so it was not a continuation of the trial or appeal. Applying cause of action principles and forum conveniens, the Court found that the relevant material and processing were in Delhi and that the writ petition could be entertained there. The objection to jurisdiction therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether this Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition challenging rejection of the mercy petition, and whether the doctrine of forum conveniens required refusal of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The power exercised by the President and the Governor under Articles 72 and 161 is an executive constitutional power and is distinct from the completed criminal proceedings. The Court held that a challenge to rejection of a mercy petition is not a continuation of the criminal trial or appeal. It further held that, for purposes of territorial jurisdiction, the cause of action in such a case is linked to the executive decision and its processing, not merely to the situs of the crime or investigation. Applying the settled principles on cause of action and forum conveniens, the Court found that the relevant material and decision-making process were in Delhi, and that the petitioner could invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.

Conclusion: This Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, and the objection based on forum conveniens failed.

---