11-December-2024-Special-Article

STREAMLINING DEATH PENALTY AND MERCY PETITION GUIDELINES: SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court of India recently issued comprehensive guidelines to address delays and inefficiencies in executing death sentences and processing mercy petitions. These directives aim to streamline the process, safeguard rights, and ensure fair implementation.

Key Guidelines on Death Penalty and Mercy Petitions

1. Establishment of Dedicated Cells

Purpose: Special units will be created within state and union territory Home or Prison Departments.

Responsibilities:

• Handle mercy petitions within the stipulated time frame.
• Operate under a designated officer whose contact details will be shared with prisons.
• An official from the Law or Justice Department will oversee legal compliance.

2. Efficient Information Sharing

Mandatory Submission: Prison authorities must forward:

• Mercy petitions and relevant documents (e.g., convict’s history, legal records).
• Police reports, FIRs, evidence from trials, and court judgments to the cell officer and Home Department Secretary.
• Forwarding to Authorities: Mercy petitions should be sent promptly to the Governor or President’s office for action.

3. Use of Electronic Communication

• Objective: Enhance efficiency by conducting communications electronically (e.g., email), except where confidentiality is required.

4. Record Maintenance for Death Sentence Cases

Role of Sessions Courts:

• Maintain updated records of death sentence cases.
• Promptly list cases on the cause list upon receiving instructions from higher courts.
• Issue notices to prosecutors and investigative agencies to confirm the status of appeals, reviews, or mercy pleas.

5. Execution Warrant Protocol

Mandatory Gap: A minimum of 15 days between the issuance of an execution warrant and its implementation.

Convict’s Rights:

• Inform convicts about their right to legal representation.
• Provide immediate copies of the warrant and issuing order.
• Offer legal assistance for challenging the warrant if requested.

6. State Government’s Role

• Timely Action: Apply for execution warrants as soon as the death sentence becomes final and enforceable.

Death Penalty and Mercy Petitions

About the Death Penalty

Capital punishment involves the state executing an individual for heinous crimes.

Legal Provisions:

• Governed by the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS, 2023) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS, 2023).
• Prescribed for grave offenses like murder (Section 302), serial rape, and terrorism (UAPA).

About Mercy Petitions

A formal plea to the President or Governor seeking clemency from the death sentence or imprisonment.

Constitutional Basis:

• Article 72: Grants the President power to pardon, suspend, or commute sentences, including death penalties.
• Article 161: Grants similar powers to Governors for state-level cases.

Significant Ruling: In 2021, the SC clarified that Governors can pardon even death-row prisoners before completing a 14-year prison term.

Implications of the SC Guidelines

Reduced Delays

• Dedicated cells and systematic procedures will ensure timely resolution.
• Example: Delays in the Nirbhaya case highlighted the need for structured processes.

Enhanced Accountability

• Clear roles and responsibilities for officials will promote transparency.
• Example: The Shatrughan Chauhan case emphasized accountability in executions.

Legal Support and Protection of Rights

• Convicts are informed of their rights and provided legal aid, ensuring fairness under Article 21.
• Aligns with the “rarest of rare” principle, which considers mitigating factors before awarding the death penalty.

Strengthened Judicial Oversight

• Regular monitoring and record-keeping by Sessions Courts will prevent procedural lapses.

Supreme Court Rulings on Death Penalty

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980): Introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine, reserving the death penalty for exceptionally heinous crimes.
• Jagmohan Singh v. State of UP (1973): Upheld that capital punishment is constitutional if carried out per due legal procedures.
• Rajendra Prasad v. State of UP (1979): Endorsed death penalty for crimes threatening societal security.
• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983): Provided guidelines to determine if a case qualifies as “rarest of rare.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s guidelines on death penalties and mercy petitions aim to ensure efficiency, fairness, and protection of constitutional rights. By emphasizing structured processes, transparency, and legal safeguards, these measures address delays and uphold the principles of justice and human rights in the administration of capital punishment.

Mains Question:

1. Critically analyze the implications of the Supreme Court’s guidelines on death penalty execution and mercy petitions in ensuring justice, accountability, and human rights protection. (150 WORDS).