Posts
Source: The Times of India dated 22.1.2014
New Delhi: In an unprecedented judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday freed 15 condemned prisoners, each awarded the death sentence for brutal multiple murders, from the fear of the hangman’s noose by commuting their punishment to life term on the grounds that the President had taken an inordinately long time to reject their mercy petitions.
The court came to the rescue of the 15, some of whom had been served with execution warrants, on two grounds—“inordinate, undue and unexplained” delay in disposal of their mercy pleas and
“non-consideration of their mental illness”.
The court also fixed a mandatory 14-day gap between the mercy petition being rejected and the convict being hanged to allow the prisoner to prepare for death and meet his family for the last time.
A bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Shiva Kirti Singh said, “Keeping a convict in suspense while consideration of his mercy petition by the President for many years is certainly an agony for him/her. It creates adverse physical conditions and psychological stresses on the convict under sentence of death.”
Justice Sathasivam authored the 157-page judgment for the bench.
SPARED NOOSE
SC gives life to 15 after Prez okayed death
Says Delay And Mental Illness Valid Grounds
Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN
New Delhi: In an unprecedented judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday freed 15 condemned prisoners, each awarded the death sentence for brutal multiple murders, from the fear of the hangman’s noose by commuting their punishment to life term on the grounds that the President had taken an inordinately long time to reject their mercy petitions.
The court came to the rescue of the 15, some of whom had been served with execution warrants, on two grounds—“inordinate, undue and unexplained” delay in disposal of their mercy pleas and
“non-consideration of their mental illness”.
The court also fixed a mandatory 14-day gap between the mercy petition being rejected and the convict being hanged to allow the prisoner to prepare for death and meet his family for the last time.
A bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Shiva Kirti Singh said, “Keeping a convict in suspense while consideration of his mercy petition by the President for many years is certainly an agony for him/her. It creates adverse physical conditions and psychological stresses on the convict under sentence of death.”
Justice Sathasivam authored the 157-page judgment for the bench.
SPARED NOOSE
- Suresh (60) and Ramji (45): Wiped out family of Suresh’s brother. In jail for 17 yrs. Delay in deciding on mercy plea | 12 years
- Bilavendran (55), Simon (50), Gnanprakasam (60), Madiah (64) | Veerappan aides. Jail | 20 yrs Plea delay | 9 yrs
- Praveen Kumar (55): Murdered 4 of a family. Jail | 15 yrs 9 mths Plea delay | 9.5 years
- Gurmeet Singh (56): Murdered 13 of a family. Jail | 26 years Plea delay | 7 years 8 months
- Sonia (30), Sanjeev Kumar (38) Killed 6 of family. Jail | 12 yrs Plea delay | 6 years
- Jafar Ali (48): Killed wife and 5 daughters Jail | 11 years 5 mths Plea delay | 9 years
- Shivu (31) & Jadeswamy (25): Rape-cum-murder of minor. Jail | 12 years Plea delay | 6.5 years
Delay in disposing of mercy plea affects right to life: SC
New Delhi: Commuting the death sentence of 15 convicts, Supreme Court Chief Justice Sathasivam said gravity and heinousness of crime committed by the condemned prisoners could not wipe out the ill-effects of undue and unexplained delay in disposal of their mercy petition which affected their right to life. “Indisputably, this court, while considering the rejection of the clemency petitions by the President, cannot excuse the agonizing delay caused to the convict only on the basis of gravity of the crime,” he said.
While 13 were spared the noose for delay in disposal of mercy petitions that ranged between six-and-ahalf years to 12 years, two others were saved from the gallows as the court found that they suffered from mental illness.
“The direction of United Nations International Conventions, to which India is a party, clearly shows that insanity/mental illness/schizophrenia is a crucial supervening circumstance, which should be considered by this court in deciding whether in the facts and circumstances of the case of death sentence could be commuted to life imprisonment. To put it clear, insanity is a relevant supervening factor for consideration by this court,” it said.
The beneficiary of this judgment could be Devenderpal Singh Bhullar, who was handed down death penalty for his role in the bomb attack on then Youth Congress president M S Bitta in 1993 in which nine policemen were killed and 25 people were injured, including Bitta. Bhullar had pleaded for commutation of the death sentence on the grounds that he had undergone imprisonment for 20 years which was akin to a life term and that he had lost mental equilibrium in the despairing 11-year wait.
On April 12 last year, the apex court had rejected his plea for commutation of death sentence on the grounds of delay in disposal of his mercy plea by the President saying those convicted for acts of terrorism could not be given benefit of commutation on grounds of inordinate delay.
The bench headed by Justice Sathasivam said the ruling was against the logic of several previous judgments and hence could not hold its ground. “We are of the view that unexplained delay is one of the grounds for commutation of sentence of death into life imprisonment and the said supervening circumstance is applicable to all types of cases, including the offences under Tada,” it said.
This judgment could also be of vital importance to the Rajiv assassination case condemned prisoners – Santhan, Perarivalan and Murugan – who have moved court citing delay in disposal of their mercy pleas and the apex court two years ago had stayed their execution.
It also said a minimum 14-day gap should be there between intimation of rejection of mercy petition to the condemned prisoner and the date of execution. This time period would allow “the prisoner to prepare himself mentally for execution, to make his peace with god, prepare his will and settle other earthly affairs and have a last and final meeting with his family members and friends,” it said.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed all prison authorities to give a gap of 14 days between intimation of rejection of mercy petition to the condemned prisoner and his actual execution to allow him to prepare mentally to make peace with God, prepare his will and meet family and friends one last time.
It also was critical of the practice in certain jails to put a person in solitary confinement immediately after the trial court awarded death penalty after conviction and said a condemned prisoner could be put alone in a single cell only in the last 14 days of his life and not before that.
A bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam found that some prison manuals did not provide for any minimum period between the President’s decision to reject a mercy petition being communicated to the condemned prisoner and his family members and the actual date of his execution. “Some prison manuals have a minimum period of one day while others have 14 days,” it said.
It said there was a need to provide a minimum gap of 14 days between receipt of communication of rejection of mercy petition and scheduled execution as it would allow the condemned prisoner:
• to prepare himself mentally for execution, to make peace with god, prepare his will and settle other earthly affairs
• to have a last and final meeting with his family members who might have to travel long distance, and
• to allow him to seek judicial redress of grievances against rejection of mercy petition.
The CJI-headed bench was peeved that the apex court’s direction for prison reforms, given in Sunil Batra case more than 35 years ago, were yet to be implemented.
The bench said, “This court in Sunil Batra case had held that solitary confinement or single cell confinement prior to rejection of the mercy petition by the President is unconstitutional. Almost all the prison manuals of the states provide necessary rules governing the confinement of death convicts. These rules should not be interpreted to run counter to the above ruling and violate Article 21.”
The court also found that condemned prisoners could seldom afford legal assistance and their grievances almost never reached the judiciary for redress.
“Since this court has held that Article 21 (right to life) rights inhere in a convict till his last breath, even after rejection of the mercy petition by the President, the convict can approach a writ court (high court or the Supreme Court) for commutation of the death sentence on the ground of supervening events, if available, and challenge the rejection of mercy petition and legal aid should be provided at all stages,” the bench said.
“Accordingly, superintendents of jails are directed to intimate the rejection of mercy petitions to the nearest Legal Aid Centre apart from informing the convicts,” it said.
While 13 were spared the noose for delay in disposal of mercy petitions that ranged between six-and-ahalf years to 12 years, two others were saved from the gallows as the court found that they suffered from mental illness.
“The direction of United Nations International Conventions, to which India is a party, clearly shows that insanity/mental illness/schizophrenia is a crucial supervening circumstance, which should be considered by this court in deciding whether in the facts and circumstances of the case of death sentence could be commuted to life imprisonment. To put it clear, insanity is a relevant supervening factor for consideration by this court,” it said.
The beneficiary of this judgment could be Devenderpal Singh Bhullar, who was handed down death penalty for his role in the bomb attack on then Youth Congress president M S Bitta in 1993 in which nine policemen were killed and 25 people were injured, including Bitta. Bhullar had pleaded for commutation of the death sentence on the grounds that he had undergone imprisonment for 20 years which was akin to a life term and that he had lost mental equilibrium in the despairing 11-year wait.
On April 12 last year, the apex court had rejected his plea for commutation of death sentence on the grounds of delay in disposal of his mercy plea by the President saying those convicted for acts of terrorism could not be given benefit of commutation on grounds of inordinate delay.
The bench headed by Justice Sathasivam said the ruling was against the logic of several previous judgments and hence could not hold its ground. “We are of the view that unexplained delay is one of the grounds for commutation of sentence of death into life imprisonment and the said supervening circumstance is applicable to all types of cases, including the offences under Tada,” it said.
This judgment could also be of vital importance to the Rajiv assassination case condemned prisoners – Santhan, Perarivalan and Murugan – who have moved court citing delay in disposal of their mercy pleas and the apex court two years ago had stayed their execution.
It also said a minimum 14-day gap should be there between intimation of rejection of mercy petition to the condemned prisoner and the date of execution. This time period would allow “the prisoner to prepare himself mentally for execution, to make his peace with god, prepare his will and settle other earthly affairs and have a last and final meeting with his family members and friends,” it said.
After mercy plea is rejected, give 14 days to condemned: SC
Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed all prison authorities to give a gap of 14 days between intimation of rejection of mercy petition to the condemned prisoner and his actual execution to allow him to prepare mentally to make peace with God, prepare his will and meet family and friends one last time.
It also was critical of the practice in certain jails to put a person in solitary confinement immediately after the trial court awarded death penalty after conviction and said a condemned prisoner could be put alone in a single cell only in the last 14 days of his life and not before that.
A bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam found that some prison manuals did not provide for any minimum period between the President’s decision to reject a mercy petition being communicated to the condemned prisoner and his family members and the actual date of his execution. “Some prison manuals have a minimum period of one day while others have 14 days,” it said.
It said there was a need to provide a minimum gap of 14 days between receipt of communication of rejection of mercy petition and scheduled execution as it would allow the condemned prisoner:
• to prepare himself mentally for execution, to make peace with god, prepare his will and settle other earthly affairs
• to have a last and final meeting with his family members who might have to travel long distance, and
• to allow him to seek judicial redress of grievances against rejection of mercy petition.
The CJI-headed bench was peeved that the apex court’s direction for prison reforms, given in Sunil Batra case more than 35 years ago, were yet to be implemented.
The bench said, “This court in Sunil Batra case had held that solitary confinement or single cell confinement prior to rejection of the mercy petition by the President is unconstitutional. Almost all the prison manuals of the states provide necessary rules governing the confinement of death convicts. These rules should not be interpreted to run counter to the above ruling and violate Article 21.”
The court also found that condemned prisoners could seldom afford legal assistance and their grievances almost never reached the judiciary for redress.
“Since this court has held that Article 21 (right to life) rights inhere in a convict till his last breath, even after rejection of the mercy petition by the President, the convict can approach a writ court (high court or the Supreme Court) for commutation of the death sentence on the ground of supervening events, if available, and challenge the rejection of mercy petition and legal aid should be provided at all stages,” the bench said.
“Accordingly, superintendents of jails are directed to intimate the rejection of mercy petitions to the nearest Legal Aid Centre apart from informing the convicts,” it said.
No comments:
Post a Comment