Top court issues guidelines on processing of mercy petitions

In its landmark judgment, a bench comprising justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and AG Masih emphasised that delays in executing death sentences, particularly those arising from administrative inefficiencies, violate the fundamental rights of convicts under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The ruling came while the court upheld a Bombay high court decision to commute the death sentences of two convicts in the 2007 Pune BPO rape and murder case to 35 years of imprisonment. The convicts, including the driver of the office cab, brutally assaulted and murdered a young woman after abducting her. They were initially sentenced to death by the trial court – a decision that was affirmed by the high court and also by the Supreme Court in 2015. However, their execution was delayed by over three years due to administrative lapses, prompting the high court to reduce their punishment.

The Supreme Court, concurring with this decision, observed that such inordinate delays inflicted unnecessary psychological and physical suffering on the convicts, rendering the death penalty inhumane and unconstitutional for violating Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to life and dignity.

Acknowledging a “casual and negligent” approach by executive authorities in handling mercy petitions, the bench mandated the establishment of dedicated cells within the home or prison departments of all state governments and Union territories to ensure swift processing.

The bench reinforced that prolonged delays in processing mercy petitions or issuing execution warrants infringe on a convict’s fundamental rights under Article 21, stating that “the sword of Damocles could not be kept hanging over convicts indefinitely because the resulting mental and physical anguish amounted to cruel and degrading treatment.

“An inordinate and unexplained delay caused by circumstances beyond the prisoners’ control mandates the commutation of a death sentence,” held the court, emphasising that the right to life and dignity under Article 21 does not end with the pronouncement of the death sentence but extends until its execution.

At the same time, the court acknowledged the victims’ right to justice, asserting that the law must be enforced rigorously. However, it clarified that victims do not have the right to insist on capital punishment, underscoring the need for a balanced approach that respects the rights of all stakeholders.

The judgment highlighted that the right to life extends until the execution of the sentence, and courts must assess delays on a case-by-case basis, considering the psychological impact on convicts awaiting execution.

To address the systemic issues leading to delays, the court issued detailed directions to state governments, Union territories, and judicial authorities. Key among these is the establishment of dedicated cells within the home or prison departments to handle mercy petitions. These cells will act as the nodal agencies responsible for ensuring the prompt processing of petitions, from collecting necessary information about the convict to forwarding petitions to constitutional authorities. Each cell will be headed by a designated officer who will oversee communications and coordinate with other departments. To expedite the process, the court mandated that all documents, including judgments, evidence, and prison reports, be translated into English if required and shared electronically unless confidentiality is involved.

Additionally, prison authorities must immediately forward mercy petitions to the dedicated cell upon receipt, along with detailed records such as the convict’s criminal antecedents, family background, economic status and prison conduct. The police and investigating agencies are required to cooperate fully, furnishing all requested information without delay.

The court also directed state governments to frame office orders or executive guidelines outlining the standard operating procedures for dealing with mercy petitions. These orders must be implemented within three months, with compliance reports to be submitted to the Supreme Court.

The court also placed responsibilities on sessions courts, which play a critical role in issuing execution warrants after a death sentence is upheld. The sessions courts have been directed to proactively track the status of appeals, review petitions and mercy petitions to avoid unnecessary delays.

Once all legal remedies are exhausted, the sessions court must issue a warrant for execution promptly. However, the court must provide the convict with at least 15 clear days between the issuance of the warrant and the execution date, ensuring they have adequate time to seek any remaining legal recourse or prepare mentally and emotionally, according to the judgment.

Moreover, the sessions courts have been instructed to engage with prison authorities to ensure that convicts are informed of the implications of the warrant and provided with legal aid if required. The bench also stressed the importance of adhering to humane procedures, reflecting a commitment to upholding constitutional values even in the most serious cases.

While reaffirming the constitutionality of the death penalty as a punishment, the top court stressed that its implementation must align with the principles of fairness and humanity. It pointed out that procedural lapses not only undermine the rights of convicts but also erode public confidence in the justice system.

The judgment has wide-ranging implications for how mercy petitions and executions are handled in India. By mandating time-bound procedures and holding authorities accountable, the court aims to eliminate the systemic delays that have plagued the death penalty process for decades.

The guidelines serve as a reminder that even the most serious punishments must be carried out in a manner that respects the constitutional rights of individuals. The ruling also highlights the judiciary’s evolving approach to capital punishment, focussing on fairness, transparency and the minimisation of suffering. As the nation debates the morality and efficacy of the death penalty, the Supreme Court’s directives represent a crucial step toward a more humane and just legal system.