Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a death-row convict’s challenge to rejection of his mercy petition. Its examination of the official files showed that relevant records and circumstances had been considered. The optional jail-superintendent recommendation was not mandatory, the alleged solitary confinement was not established on the prison affidavit, and swift disposal did not itself demonstrate prejudgment or non-application of mind. No ground for the limited judicial review of clemency decisions was made out.
Issues
- Whether rejection of the mercy petition was vitiated by withheld material, missing prison recommendation, alleged confinement conditions or swift decision-making.
Held
- Judicial review of clemency is limited to grounds including non-application of mind, mala fides, extraneous considerations, exclusion of relevant material and arbitrariness; courts do not ordinarily reassess the merits of the executive decision. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- The Court inspected the official files and found the relevant judgments, case records and personal circumstances had been placed before and considered by the President. The superintendent’s initial forwarding letter did not exhaust the eventual record, and every item previously relied on for a rejected defence need not separately be placed before the President. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- The nominal-roll column sought a superintendent’s recommendation if any, making it optional in this context. The Court found no failure to consider the applicable mercy guidelines. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26)
- The prison affidavit described an open-barred single room with daily interaction with other inmates, rather than the alleged solitary confinement. That allegation was not accepted as a review ground; the claimed prison sufferings also did not establish a ground within the limited clemency review. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- Swift consideration alone did not show prejudgment or non-application of mind, particularly where the detailed note and relevant records were examined. Delay may support review in an appropriate case, but speed of rejection by itself did not do so here. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35)
Result
Writ petition challenging the President’s rejection of the mercy petition dismissed; no ground for judicial review or commutation was established.