The Supreme Court of India, on Monday, ruled that once a death row convict is informed of the rejection of their mercy petition by the President or Governor, they should not be left indefinitely awaiting the execution of the death penalty. Prolonged delays in carrying out death warrants, the Court emphasized, violate the convict's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. This principle was outlined in the case State of Maharashtra v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade and Others, where a three-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih held that unreasonable delays in execution could justify the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment.
The Court further clarified that the responsibility for such delays lies with the executive, not the constitutional authorities. This judgment upheld the Bombay High Court's decision to commute the death sentences of two convicts to life imprisonment, citing inordinate delays.
The bench issued several directives to address this issue:
Convicts can approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 if there is undue or unexplained delay in executing their death sentence.
The Supreme Court will review only the delay and its circumstances post-finalization of the death sentence, without reexamining the judicial conclusions leading to the sentence.
Prolonged consideration of mercy petitions causes mental and physical anguish for the convict, which the Court deemed unacceptable.
The Court, under Article 32 read with Article 21, must consider delays in mercy petition decisions and cannot justify them solely based on the crime's severity.
Article 21 extends to the execution stage, and inordinate delays dehumanize the convict.
Delays beyond the convict's control warrant the commutation of the death sentence.
Once a mercy petition is rejected, prolonged suspension of the execution process violates Article 21 rights and justifies converting the death sentence to life imprisonment.
No fixed timeframe can define “undue” delay; courts must assess the impact of delays case-by-case.
Following the exhaustion of remedies, trial courts must prioritize issuing execution warrants without delay.
The case originated from a 2019 criminal appeal by the Maharashtra government against the Bombay High Court's decision to commute the death sentences of two individuals, Purushottam Borate and Pradeep Kokade, convicted of the 2007 rape and murder of a Pune-based BPO employee. The High Court based its decision on significant delays in processing their mercy petitions, which took one to two years. Ultimately, the death sentences were converted to life imprisonment, with a mandatory 35 years of incarceration before considering remission.
The Supreme Court admonished the executive, particularly the Maharashtra government, for its negligent approach to handling mercy petitions. It directed all States and Union Territories to establish dedicated cells within their Home or Prison Departments to expedite the processing of mercy petitions. These cells must include representatives from the Law or Judiciary Departments to ensure adherence to timelines established by respective governments.
Additionally, the Supreme Court laid out specific guidelines for Sessions Courts, emphasizing timely action:
Once a High Court confirms or imposes a death sentence, Sessions Courts must promptly list the case on their cause lists.
Sessions Courts should immediately notify the State Public Prosecutor or investigating agency to verify whether appeals or special leave petitions are pending before the Supreme Court.
Upon receiving the Supreme Court's final decision confirming or restoring a death sentence, the Sessions Court must ascertain whether any review, curative, or mercy petitions remain unresolved.
Before issuing an execution warrant, the convict must be notified, and the procedural safeguards established in PUDR v. Union of India by the Allahabad High Court must be implemented.
Legal aid must be made available to convicts challenging the warrant, with at least 15 clear days between the warrant's issuance and the execution date.
Cause Title: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. V/S PRADEEP YASHWANT KOKADE & ANR.
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs 2831 & 2832 OF 2024
Date: December-09-2024
Bench: Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Augustine George Masih
