Summary
The Court declined to commute the petitioner’s death sentence on the asserted delay in deciding a mercy petition filed on his behalf. After examining the government file, it accepted that consideration had been deferred on national-security and law-and-order grounds, amounting to refusal for the present. The competent authority was to consider the matter again in due course when deemed necessary.
Issues
- Whether the asserted delay justified judicial commutation of the death sentence.
- Effect of the executive decision deferring consideration on sensitive security grounds.
Held
- On the particular record, the Court rejected the claim of inordinate delay warranting commutation. The 2012 petition had been filed by SGPC rather than the prisoner personally; the proposal had been processed following the September 2019 communication and reconsidered after the Court’s intervening directions. The delay precedents relied on were factually distinguishable. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The Court examined the Ministry’s file and the reasons for deferral based on reports concerning national security and law and order. In these circumstances it declined further intervention into that sensitive executive assessment. The decision was not a fresh adjudication of the underlying conviction or sentence on appeal. (¶ 15-19)
- Deferral was treated as a decision declining mercy for the present, rather than a final rejection for all time. The competent authority was directed to deal with the mercy petition again in due course, as and when deemed necessary, and take a further decision; no fixed fresh deadline or commutation was ordered. (¶ 20-22)
Result
Writ petition disposed of without commuting the death sentence or directing immediate disposal. Competent authority to take a further decision in due course when deemed necessary; pending applications disposed of.