In its order, the court expressed the view that the early disposal of mercy petitions would inform an accused of their fate and justice would also be done to the victim..—-.ON Thursday, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar directed state governments and appropriate authorities to decide the mercy petitions of death row convicts at the earliest so that the benefit of delay is not taken advantage of by the convicts..The Bench was of the view that the early disposal of the mercy petitions would inform the accused of his fate and bring closure to the victim..The court was hearing an appeal filed by the Maharashtra government challenging an order of the Bombay High Court passed on January 18, 2022 whereby it had commuted the death sentence imposed on some convicts to that of life imprisonment on the ground of inordinate, unexplained delay of over seven years in deciding the mercy petition..While the Bench did not interfere with the high court's order commuting the death sentence, it directed the convicts to undergo life imprisonment for their natural life and without any remission..Last year, the high court commuted the death sentence awarded to sisters Renuka Shinde and Seema Gavit, on the ground of inexplicable delay on the part of the State in processing their mercy pleas..The sisters were convicted by a sessions judge on June 28, 2001 on the charges of kidnapping 13 children, attempting to kidnap one more, and committing murders of nine of them from 1990 to 1996. Both the high court and the Supreme Court dismissed their appeals and upheld their death sentences. The duo filed a mercy petition with the governor of Maharashtra seeking to invoke the power of pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution. The Governor rejected it in 2013..In 2006, an application to the President to invoke the power of pardon under Article 72 of the Constitution was filed by the convicts. The mercy petition was rejected by the President in 2014, without explaining the delay of seven years, ten months and 15 days to dispose of their petition..The convicts approached the Bombay High Court on August 19, 2014, the day they were to be executed, seeking judicial review of the President's decision, and seeking commutation of the death penalty to life imprisonment. They argued that due to the delay in disposal of their mercy petitions, their constitutional right under Article 21 (protection of life and liberty) of the Constitution was infringed upon, and their death sentence should therefore be commuted to that of life imprisonment..While commuting their death sentences, the high court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. versus Union of India & Ors. (2014) in which it had been held that not only should the death sentence be passed lawfully, but the execution of the sentence must also be in consonance with the constitutional mandate, and not in violation of constitutional principles. The Supreme Court had also held that when the delay in disposal of a mercy petition is unreasonable, unexplained and exorbitant, courts must step in..Click here to view the Supreme Court's order in The State of Maharashtra & Ors. versus Renuka @ Rinku @ Ratan Kiran Shinde & Ors.
In its order, the court expressed the view that the early disposal of mercy petitions would inform an accused of their fate and justice would also be done to the victim..—-.ON Thursday, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar directed state governments and appropriate authorities to decide the mercy petitions of death row convicts at the earliest so that the benefit of delay is not taken advantage of by the convicts..The Bench was of the view that the early disposal of the mercy petitions would inform the accused of his fate and bring closure to the victim..The court was hearing an appeal filed by the Maharashtra government challenging an order of the Bombay High Court passed on January 18, 2022 whereby it had commuted the death sentence imposed on some convicts to that of life imprisonment on the ground of inordinate, unexplained delay of over seven years in deciding the mercy petition..While the Bench did not interfere with the high court's order commuting the death sentence, it directed the convicts to undergo life imprisonment for their natural life and without any remission..Last year, the high court commuted the death sentence awarded to sisters Renuka Shinde and Seema Gavit, on the ground of inexplicable delay on the part of the State in processing their mercy pleas..The sisters were convicted by a sessions judge on June 28, 2001 on the charges of kidnapping 13 children, attempting to kidnap one more, and committing murders of nine of them from 1990 to 1996. Both the high court and the Supreme Court dismissed their appeals and upheld their death sentences. The duo filed a mercy petition with the governor of Maharashtra seeking to invoke the power of pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution. The Governor rejected it in 2013..In 2006, an application to the President to invoke the power of pardon under Article 72 of the Constitution was filed by the convicts. The mercy petition was rejected by the President in 2014, without explaining the delay of seven years, ten months and 15 days to dispose of their petition..The convicts approached the Bombay High Court on August 19, 2014, the day they were to be executed, seeking judicial review of the President's decision, and seeking commutation of the death penalty to life imprisonment. They argued that due to the delay in disposal of their mercy petitions, their constitutional right under Article 21 (protection of life and liberty) of the Constitution was infringed upon, and their death sentence should therefore be commuted to that of life imprisonment..While commuting their death sentences, the high court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. versus Union of India & Ors. (2014) in which it had been held that not only should the death sentence be passed lawfully, but the execution of the sentence must also be in consonance with the constitutional mandate, and not in violation of constitutional principles. The Supreme Court had also held that when the delay in disposal of a mercy petition is unreasonable, unexplained and exorbitant, courts must step in..Click here to view the Supreme Court's order in The State of Maharashtra & Ors. versus Renuka @ Rinku @ Ratan Kiran Shinde & Ors.
