Answer:
APPROACH AND STRUCTURE
THE INTRODUCTION: Define the President’s pardoning power under Article 72
THE BODY
-
- Current situation.
- Average time taken for decisions (4+ years).
- Arguments for time limit.
- Supreme Court cases supporting time limits.
- Arguments against time limit.
- Relevant Supreme Court judgments.
- Recommendations.
THE CONCLUSION: Suggest establishing guidelines without rigid requirements.
THE INTRODUCTION:
President has power to grant pardon, reprieves or remissions under article 72 of Indian Constitutions. President can suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any convicted person. It acts as a constitutional safeguard and integral to the system of checks and balances.
THE BODY:
Under article 74, President exercise this power on the advice of council of ministers. Constitution has not specified any time limit to decide on mercy petitions. Supreme court has opined that undue delay in deciding the petitions can become grounds for commutation of death sentences.
The average time taken to decide mercy petitions has been over 4 years in the last decade. In some cases, mercy petitions have remained pending for over 10-12 years.
Death row Convicts witness mental agony caused by prolonged uncertainty on their petition. It dilutes the public faith in criminal justice system. Inordinate delay cause and prolong the psychological trauma of families of victims and convicts. Time limits should compel the executive to act promptly and take time bound decisions.
The Supreme Court has changed death penalties to life imprisonment because of delays in finalizing mercy pleas, as evident in cases such as Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State of N.C.T. Delhi (2013) and Mahendra Nath Das v. Union of India (2011). These rulings emphasize the importance of making decisions to uphold principles of justice.
However, detailed examinations are quintessential. Rushing this process could lead to inadequate consideration and potential miscarriages of justice. It makes any rigid time limits impractical. It will also infringe upon the President’s constitutional discretion. It may have the risk of hasty decisions caused by deadlines.
The Supreme Court has addressed this issue in several landmark judgments:
-
- In Shatrughan Chauhan Union of India (2014), the Court held that inordinate delay in deciding mercy petitions is a ground for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment.
- In Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. (2006), the Court ruled that the exercise of clemency powers can be subject to judicial review.
- In Shatrugan Chouhan v. Union of India (2014), the Court laid down guidelines for dealing with death row prisoners, including timely intimation of rejection of mercy pleas.
To balance the need for timely justice with the necessity of thorough review, the following recommendations can be considered:
-
- Guidelines for Timely Disposal: Establishing non-binding guidelines for the time frame within which mercy petitions should ideally be decided can ensure a balance between efficiency and thoroughness.
- Periodic Review Mechanism: Implementing a periodic review mechanism to monitor the status of pending mercy petitions can help identify and address delays without imposing a rigid time limit.
- Legislative Oversight: Parliament can oversee the process and ensure that the executive adheres to the principles of justice and fairness.
THE CONCLUSION:
While there is a compelling need to ensure timely justice and alleviate the suffering of convicts and victims’ families, it is equally important to allow sufficient time for a comprehensive review of mercy petitions. Establishing guidelines or norms for deciding these petitions within a reasonable timeframe, without making it a rigid requirement, can strike a balance between efficiency and fairness in exercising the president’s clemency powers.
Spread the Word