Top court issues guidelines on processing of mercy petitions in order to limit delays

The Supreme Court on Monday laid down a comprehensive set of guidelines to ensure the swift and efficient processing of mercy petitions by death-row convicts, marking a significant development in the legal framework surrounding capital punishment and underlining the adverse effects of delays on both the convicts and societal confidence in justice.

- Utkarsh Anand

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.