Sentence – Death sentence – Inordinate, unexplained delay in execution of – Delay in processing, disposal of mercy petitions and issue of warrant of execution of the death sentence – High Court commuted the death sentence of the convicts to thirty-five years of imprisonment holding that there was an undue and avoidable delay in executing the death sentence – Challenge to:
Held: Impugned judgment upheld – An inordinate and unexplained delay caused by circumstances beyond the prisoners’ control mandates the commutation of a death sentence – When the delay from the date of filing of mercy petitions till the date of issue of a warrant of execution is inordinate and unexplained, the right of the convicts guaranteed by Article 21 is violated – The time consumed from the filing of mercy petitions before the Hon’ble Governor to the date of issue of the execution of warrants by the Sessions Court is of three years, eleven months and fourteen days – On facts, time was consumed from 10th July 2015 till 10th April 2019 in deciding the mercy petitions filed before the Hon’ble Governor of the State and the Hon’ble President of India, and in issuing warrants for executing the death sentence – There has been an undue, unexplained and inordinate delay at all three stages – Undue delays occurred in placing the mercy petitions before the Hon’ble Governor for the State and the Hon’ble President of India which delay was on the part of the executive and not on the part of the Constitutional functionaries – When the mercy petitions were pending, the Sessions Court could not have issued a warrant to execute the death sentence – Sessions Court ought to have acted upon the several letters from the Prison and issued notice to the State Government however, that was not done – High Court rightly held that there was a violation of the rights of the convicts guaranteed u/Article 21 – Commutation of the death sentence to a fixed term sentence of thirty-five years cannot be faulted with. [Paras 34-36, 42]
Directions by Supreme Court – Death Sentence – Administrative delays in dealing with mercy petitions or execution of death penalty – Directions/Guidelines issued to State Governments, Union Territories and Sessions Court to curb the delays – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.413, 414:
Held: A dedicated cell to be constituted by the Home Department or the Prison Department of the State Governments/Union Territories for dealing with mercy petitions, which shall be responsible for the prompt processing of the mercy petitions within the time frame laid down by the respective governments – An officer-in-charge of the dedicated cell shall be nominated by designation who shall receive and issue communications on behalf of the dedicated cell – An official of the Law and Judiciary or Justice Department of the State Governments/Union Territories should be attached to the dedicated cell – All the prisons to be informed about the designation of the officer-in-charge of the dedicated cell and his address and email ID – Further, as soon as the Superintendent of Prison/officer-in-charge receives the mercy petitions, he shall immediately forward the copies thereof to the dedicated cell and call for the details/information, as stated, from the officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station and/or the concerned investigation agency – On receipt of the request made by the jail authorities, the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station shall furnish the said information to the jail authorities immediately – On receipt of the said information, without any delay, the jail authorities shall forward the documents as enumertaed to the officer-in-charge of the dedicated cell and the Secretary of the Home Department of the State Government – As soon as mercy petitions are received by the dedicated cell, copies thereof shall be forwarded to the Secretariats of the Hon’ble Governor of the State or the Hon’ble President of India, as the case may be so that the Secretariat can initiate action at their end – All correspondence, as far as possible, be made by email, unless confidential – State Government to issue office orders/executive orders containing guidelines for dealing with the mercy petitions in terms of the present judgment – Guidelines to be followed by Sessions Court, enumerated – Directions issued by the Allahabad High Court in People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) v. Union of India & Ors., further elaborated. [Para 43] Sentence – Death Sentence – Inordinate, unexplained delay in execution – Effect – Constitution of India – Articles 21, 32,
226 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.413, 414: Held: Undue, unexplained and inordinate delay in execution of the sentence of death will entitle the convict to approach this Court under Article 32 – However, this Court will only examine the nature of the delay caused and circumstances that ensued after the judicial process finally confirmed the sentence and will have no jurisdiction to reopen the conclusions reached by the Court while finally maintaining the sentence of death – This Court, however, may consider the question of inordinate delay in the light of all circumstances of the case to decide whether the execution of sentence should be carried out or should be commuted to imprisonment for life – While exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 r/w Article 21, this Court must consider the effect of inordinate delay in disposal of the clemency petition by the highest Constitutional authorities and cannot excuse the agonising delay caused only on the basis of the gravity of the crime – Article 21 does not end with the pronouncement of the sentence but extends to the stage of execution of that sentence – An inordinate delay in the execution of the sentence of death has a dehumanising effect on the accused – An inordinate and unexplained delay caused by circumstances beyond the prisoners’ control mandates the commutation of a death sentence – The aforesaid principles will also apply to a case where there is a long and unexplained delay on the part of the Sessions Court in issuing the warrant of execution in accordance with Section 413 or Section 414, CrPC – A convict can also invoke the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 in the event there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in the execution of the death sentence, post confirmation of the sentence – Furthermore, it is the duty of the Executive to promptly process the mercy petitions invoking Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution and forward the petitions along with requisite documents to the concerned constitutional functionary without undue delay – Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – ss.453, 454. [Para 42]
Sentence – Death sentence – Delay in execution – “Inordinate”/“undue” delay – Length of delay whether inordinate:
Held: Terms “undue” or “inordinate” cannot be interpreted by applying the rules of mathematics – No hard and fast rule can be laid down as regards the length of delay, which can be said to be inordinate – What delay is inordinate depends on the facts of the case. [Para 42]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.