SPECIAL COVERAGE
CHANDIGARH

LUDHIANA

DELHI


THE TRIBUNE SPECIALS
50 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE

TERCENTENARY CELEBRATIONS



M A I N   N E W S

Apex court grants life to 15 death row convicts
Cites delay in disposing mercy pleas; frames norms
R Sedhuraman
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, January 21
The Supreme Court on Tuesday commuted to life term the death sentence of 15 convicts, mostly citing delays in the disposal of their mercy petitions, and laid down 12 guidelines for protecting the Fundamental Rights of prisoners on death row.

Among the beneficiaries of the verdict are slain sandalwood smuggler Veerappan’s associates Bilavendran, Simon, Gnanprakasam and Madiah — convicted for killing 22 policemen in April 1993 — and Haryana’s Sonia Chowdhary and her husband Sanjeev Kumar, both sentenced to death in 2004 for the gruesome murder of eight members of her family.

Listing out the guidelines, the top court directed the authorities not to keep anyone in solitary confinement in jail till the rejection of the mercy petition or execute anyone without giving an opportunity to meet “family and friends”. A minimum 14-day notice was necessary for carrying out the execution, it said.

The 154-page judgment was delivered by a three-member Bench comprising Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Shiva Kirti Singh while allowing 13 writ petitions filed by death-row convicts and civil rights organisations, including the People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), seeking commutation of their death sentence on account of the delays in the rejection of their mercy pleas or the mental illness of some of them.

The apex court ruled that death-row convicts and their family members must be intimated in writing, not orally, about the rejection of their mercy petitions by the President. Also, no mentally unsound prisoner could be sent to the gallows.

While staying the imminent execution of eight of the convicts on April 7, 2013 after an emergency hearing of their pleas at the residence of Justice Sathasivam, the apex court had made it clear that it did not want a repeat of Jammu and Kashmir, a clear reference to the hanging of 2001 Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru without facilitating a meeting with his family.

“Remember, retribution has no Constitutional value in our largest democratic country. In India, even an accused has de facto protection under the Constitution and it is the court’s duty to shield and protect the same. Therefore, we make it clear that when the judiciary interferes in such matters, it does not really interfere with the power (to grant mercy) exercised under Article 72 (by the President)/161 (by the Governor) but only uphold the de facto protection provided by the Constitution to every convict including death convicts,” the Bench noted.

“We have seen that in some cases, death-row prisoners lost their mental balance on account of prolonged anxiety and suffering experienced on death row. There should, therefore, be regular mental health evaluation of all death row convicts and appropriate medical care should be given to those in need. If the Superintendent is of the opinion that the prisoner is not fit, he should forthwith stop the execution and produce the prisoner before a medical board for a comprehensive evaluation and shall forward the report to the state government for further action.”

Among the other convicts affected by today’s verdict are Suresh, Ramji, Praveen Kumar, Gurmeet Singh, Sundar Singh, Jafar Ali, Magan Lal Berala, Shivu and Jadeswamy. 

Relief for Haryana’s Sonia & Sanjeev

The SC commuted the death sentence to Haryana’s Sonia Chowdhary and her husband Sanjeev Kumar for the gruesome murder of eight members of her family in 2001

Sonia, a taekwondo champion, chose her 19th birthday to bludgeon her ex-MLA father Reluram Punia, mother Krishna, sister Priyanka, stepbrother Sunil, his wife Shakuntala and their children Lokesh (all under four years of age)

The Bench said delay of over six years in rejection of their mercy pleas was sufficient ground to commute their death sentence into life term.

Back

 

 

Rejection of Bhullar’s plea wrong: SC
R Sedhuraman
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, January 21
Providing a fresh lease of life to death-row convict Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, the Supreme Court today ruled that its April 12, 2013, verdict rejecting Bhullar’s plea for commuting his capital punishment to life term was wrong.
Devender Pal Singh Bhullar
Devender Pal Singh Bhullar

In the 2012 verdict, a Bench comprising Justices GS Singhvi and SJ Mukhopadyana had dismissed Bhullar’s petition, holding that terrorists had no right to seek mercy citing delays in the disposal of mercy pleas and other reasons.

The Bench had ruled that earlier apex court verdicts holding that long delays could be one of the grounds for commutation of death sentence into life imprisonment “cannot be invoked in cases where a person is convicted for offences under TADA (Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act) or similar statutes.”

Today, a three-member Bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam, said: “We are unable to share the views expressed in DPS Bhullar” case. “There is no good reason to disqualify all TADA cases as a class from relief on account of delay in execution of death sentence. Each case requires consideration on its own facts…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,” clarified the Bench, which included Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Shiva Kirti Singh.

Legal experts opined that Bhullar was now free to approach the SC, seeking relief under today’s judgment which had virtually set aside the April 12 verdict as the latest verdict was by a three-judge Bench.

Rejecting the Central Government’s contention that TADA cases stood on a different pedestal for commutation of death sentence, the SC ruled that no “distinction can be drawn between IPC and non-IPC offences.”

Since death sentences were being awarded on the basis of rarest of rare cases, once the capital punishment was awarded there was no question of drawing a distinction between TADA and IPC cases, it explained.

“Considerations such as the gravity of the crime, extraordinary cruelty involved therein or some horrible consequences for society caused by the offence are not relevant after the Constitution Bench ruled in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980)2SCC684 that the sentence of death can only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases. Meaning, of course, all death sentences imposed are impliedly the most heinous and barbaric and rarest of its kind,” the Bench pointed out.

Further, commutation pleas on the ground of delay in the disposal of mercy petitions could not be decided on the basis of the gravity of the crime, the Bench clarified.

Back

 

 





 



HOME PAGE | Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Opinions |
| Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi |
| Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail |