A Dedicated Cell Be Constituted By State Or Union Territories For Dealing With Mercy Petitions: Supreme Court Issues Directions
The Supreme Court in its Judgment, has issued directions regarding Mercy Petitions to the State Governments and Union Territories.
The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals in which the main question involved was about the effect of delay in executing the death sentence.
The three-Judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih issued the following directions –
A. A dedicated cell shall be constituted by the Home Department or the Prison Department of the State Governments/Union Territories for dealing with mercy petitions. The dedicated cell 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;
B. An official of the Law and Judiciary or Justice Department of the State Governments/Union Territories should be attached to the dedicated cell so constituted;
C. All the prisons shall be informed about the designation of the officer-in-charge of the dedicated cell and his address and email ID;
D. 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 following details/information from the officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station and/or the concerned investigation agency;
a. The criminal antecedents of the convict;
b. Information about family members of the convict;
c. Economic condition of the convict and his/her family;
d. The date of arrest of the convict and the period of incarceration as an undertrial; and,
e. The date of filing charge sheet and a copy of the committal order, if any.
Advocate Shreeyash Lalit represented the Appellants while Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi and Advocate Payoshi Roy represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts -
The deceased was employed in a company as an Associate. The deceased was required to attend the night shift between 11:00 pm and 09:00 am. On 1st November 2007, one Purushottam Dasrath Borate (Convict no.2) was scheduled to pick up the deceased from her residence at 10:30 pm. Convict no.2 was the driver of the cab hired by the employer of the deceased. As per usual practice, Convict no.2 gave a missed call to the deceased. After receiving the missed call, the deceased came down. After picking up the deceased, Convict no.2 was supposed to pick up one Sagar Bidkar, an employee of the same company. Though Sagar repeatedly called Convict no.2, there was no response. At about 12:45 am, Convict no.2 came to pick up Sagar and when Sagar sat in the vehicle, one Pradeep Yashwant Kokade (Convict no.1) was already occupying the car's rear seat. Convict no.1 introduced convict no.2 to Sagar as his friend.
Before the vehicle reached the company's office, Convict no.1 alighted from the car and the Convict no.2 requested Sagar to endorse in the company's record that the delay was due to the puncture of a tyre in the vehicle. On the morning of 2nd November 2007, when the deceased did not return home, her sister enquired with the office of the deceased. She was told that the deceased had not reported for duty. The deceased's sister lodged a missing person report with the local Police Station. The body of the deceased was found and the case was registered. The Sessions Judge convicted both the convicts under Sections 376(2)(g), 364, and 404, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to death. The High Court confirmed the death sentence.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “Keeping a convict in suspense while considering his mercy petitions by the Governor or the President for an inordinately long time will certainly cause agony to him/her. It creates adverse physical conditions and psychological stress on the convict. Therefore, this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 21 of the Constitution, 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.”
The Court said that Article 21 of the Constitution does not end with the pronouncement of the sentence but extends to the stage of execution of that sentence and an inordinate delay in the execution of death sentence has a dehumanising effect on the accused. It added that an inordinate and unexplained delay caused by circumstances beyond the prisoners' control mandates the commutation of a death sentence.
“After the order of rejection of mercy petitions is communicated to a convict, the sword of Damocles cannot be kept hanging on him for an inordinately long time. This can be very agonising, both mentally and physically. Such inordinate delay will violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. In such a case, this Court will be justified in commuting the death penalty into life imprisonment”, it enunciated.
The Court remarked that, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as regards the length of delay, which can be said to be inordinate and it all depends on the facts of the case. The terms “undue” or “inordinate” cannot be interpreted by applying the rules of mathematics. It said that the Courts, in such cases, deal with human issues and the effect of the delay on individual convicts.
“What delay is inordinate must depend on the facts of the case. … A convict can invoke even the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the event there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in the execution of the death sentence, post-confirmation of the sentence”, it emphasised.
The Court added that, 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.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeals and issued necessary directions.
Cause Title- State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 947)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Krishnagopal Abhay, and Runjhun Garg.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi, AORs Vairawan A.S, Arvind Kumar Sharma, ASG K M Nataraj, Advocates Payoshi Roy, Advocates Siddhartha, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Bharathimohan M, Avinash Kumar, Santhosh K., Vinayak Sharma, Kritagya Kumar Kait, Sarthak Karol, Sharath Nambiar, Indira Bhakar, Vatsal Joshi, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Chitransh Sharma, Satvika Thakur, Yogya Rajpurohit, Aayush Saklani, Tanmay Mehta, Nikita Capoor.
