Inordinate delay in death penalty case to result in sentence commutation: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said any inordinate and unreasonable delay in execution of death row convicts after rejection of mercy petitions will violate fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and the court will be justified in commuting the penalty into life imprisonment.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih said no hard and fast rule can be laid down as regards the length of delay, which can be said to be inordinate since it all depends on the facts of the case. In a given case, a delay of two years may not be fatal. In another case, a delay of six months can be grounds to commute the sentence, the court said.

"After the order of rejection of mercy petitions is communicated to a convict, the sword of Damocles cannot be kept hanging on him for inordinately long time. This can be very agonising, both mentally and physically," the bench said.

In its judgment December 9, 2024, the court issued detailed guidelines to ensure quick disposal of death penalty cases and mercy petitions by such convicts.

The court said keeping a convict in suspense while considering mercy petitions by the Governor or the President for an inordinately long time will certainly cause agony to him or her.

"It creates adverse physical conditions and psychological stress on the convict," the bench said.

The court dismissed the Maharashtra government's appeal against the Bombay court's judgment of July 29, 2019, which commuted death sentence of two convicts Purshottam Dasrath Borate and Pradeep Yashwant Kokade to life imprisonment for a total period of 35 years.

The case related to the rape and murder of a BPO employee on November 1, 2007 by the convicts -- the cab driver and his friend.

It noted undue and avoidable in executing the sentence at every stage of the proceedings, including in processing mercy petitions and issuing warrants for executing the death sentence.

The court pointed out Article 21 of the Constitution does not end with the pronouncement of the sentence but extends to the stage of execution of that sentence.

"An inordinate delay in the execution of the sentence of death has a dehumanising effect on the accused. An inordinate and unexplained delay caused by circumstances beyond the prisoners' control mandates the commutation of a death sentence,” the bench said.

The court also held a convict can approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and invoke even the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the event there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in the execution of the death sentence, post confirmation of the sentence.

"It is the duty of the Executive to promptly process the mercy petitions invoking Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution and forward the petitions along with requisite documents to the concerned constitutional functionary without undue delay," the court said.

The court said inordinate delay in issuing execution warrants by the Sessions Court, as mandated by Sections 413 and 414 of the Criminal Procedure Code would violate Article 21 if they result in excessive mental and physical agony for the convict.

The court issued directions to the state governments and the Union Territories to create a dedicated cell by the Home Department or the Prison Department for dealing with mercy petitions within the time frame laid down by the respective governments.

It also said with the confirmation of death sentence by this court and filing of review, curative and mercy petitions, the sessions court should keep on listing the disposed of case after intervals of one month so that it gets the information about the status of the pending petitions.

"This will enable the Sessions Court to issue a warrant for the execution of the death sentence as soon as all the proceedings culminate; Before issuing the warrant, notice should be issued to the convict...There shall be a gap of fifteen clear days between the date of the receipt of the order as well as warrant by the convict and the actual date of the execution," the bench said.

The bench also made it clear that it would be the responsibility of the concerned state government or the Union Territory administration to apply to the Sessions Court for the issuance of a warrant immediately after the death penalty attains finality and becomes enforceable.