Judgments

SHATRUGHAN CHAUHAN VS STATE OF UP : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan Vs. State of UP (2014) 1 SCR 609 held that supervening events like delay in determination of mercy petitions, insanity of convict etc. can be grounds of commutation of death sentence.  

FACTS OF THE CASE

Several Writ Petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by either convicts, who were awarded death sentence or by their family members or by public spirited bodies like People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) based on the rejection of mercy petitions by the Governor and the President of India.

It was contended by the Petitioners that the impugned executive orders of rejection of mercy petitions convicts were passed without considering the supervening events i.e. delay, insanity, solitary confinement, judgments declared per incuriam, procedural lapse etc which are crucial for deciding the same.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

Nature of Power under Article 72/161

The Supreme Court observed that both Articles 72 and 161 repose the power of the people in the highest dignitaries i.e. the President or the Governor of a State, as the case may be, and there are no words of limitation indicated in either of the two Articles. The President or the Governor, as the case may be, in exercise of power under Article 72/161 respectively, may examine the evidence afresh and this exercise of power is clearly independent of the judiciary. This Court, in numerous instances, clarified that the executive is not sitting as a court of appeal rather the power of President/Governor to grant remission of sentence is an act of grace and humanity in appropriate cases i.e. distinct, absolute and unfettered in its nature.

The Supreme Court observed that the power vested in the President under Article 72 and the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution is a Constitutional duty. As a result, it is neither a matter of grace nor a matter of privilege but is an important constitutional responsibility reposed by the people in the highest authority. The power of pardon is essentially an executive action, which needs to be exercised in the aid of justice and not in defiance of it. Further, it is well settled that the power under Article 72/161 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

Limited Judicial Review

The Supreme Court relying on Maru Ram Vs Union of India (1981) SCR (1) 1196  , Epuru Sudhakar Vs. Govt. of A.P. (2006) 8 SCC 161 etc observed that it is clear that the President/Governor is not bound to hear a petition for mercy before taking a decision on the Petition. The manner of exercise of the power under the said articles is primarily a matter of discretion and ordinarily the courts would not interfere with the decision on merits. However, the Courts retain the limited power of judicial review to ensure that the Constitutional authorities consider all the relevant materials before arriving at a conclusion. Such grounds can be – (i) passing of order without application of mind, (ii) passing of order on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations (iii) relevant materials have been kept out of consideration (9) order suffering from arbitrariness.

Delay in determination of mercy petition

The Supreme Court was of view that undue, inordinate and unreasonable delay in execution of death sentence does certainly attribute to torture which indeed is in violation of Article 21 and thereby entails as the ground for commutation of sentence. However, the nature of delay i.e. whether it is undue or unreasonable must be appreciated based on facts of the individual cases and no exhaustive guidelines can be framed in this regard.

Insanity of the convict

The Supreme Court observed that if the death convict is insane and it is duly certified by the competent doctor, undoubtedly, Article 21 protects him and such person cannot be executed without further clarification from the competent authority about his mental problems. In view of the well established laws both at national as well as international sphere, insanity can be considered as one of the supervening circumstances that warrants for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court held that exercising of power under Article 72/161 by the President or the Governor is a constitutional obligation and not a mere prerogative. Considering the high status of office, the Constitutional framers did not stipulate any outer time limit for disposing the mercy petitions under the said articles, which means it should be decided within reasonable time. However, when the delay caused in disposing the mercy petitions is seen to be unreasonable, unexplained and exorbitant, it is duty of this Court to step in and consider this aspect. Right to seek for mercy under Article 72/161 of the Constitution is a constitutional right and not at the discretion or whims of the executive. Every constitutional duty must be fulfilled with due care and diligence otherwise judicial interference is the command of the Constitution for upholding its values.

The Supreme Court commuted the sentence of several convicts from death sentence into imprisonment of life.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *