Summary
Undue, unexplained and inordinate delay after the death sentence is confirmed violates Article 21 and can justify commutation. This includes executive delay in processing mercy petitions and a Sessions Court's delay in issuing the execution warrant. Here there was avoidable delay at all three stages, close to four years in all, so the High Court's commutation to a fixed 35-year term was upheld. The Court also directed States to set up dedicated mercy-petition cells and laid down a procedure for Sessions Courts issuing execution warrants.
Issues
- Whether delay in executing a death sentence after its final confirmation, including delay in deciding mercy petitions and in issuing the warrant of execution, violates Article 21 and warrants commutation.
- Whether a Sessions Court's delay in issuing a warrant of execution under Sections 413 and 414 CrPC can be counted.
- Whether a fixed length of delay determines what is inordinate.
- What procedure the executive and Sessions Courts must follow to avoid such delays.
Provisions considered
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaArticle 21 extends to the stage of executing a sentence. Inordinate, unexplained delay after confirmation, caused by circumstances beyond the convict's control, dehumanises the convict and violates the right. The Court found such a violation here. (¶¶ 22, 26, 35, 36, 42)
- Articles 32 and 226, Constitution of IndiaA convict may approach the Supreme Court under Article 32, or the High Court under Article 226, complaining of inordinate post-confirmation delay. The court examines only the delay and later circumstances and cannot reopen the conviction or sentence. (¶¶ 22, 27, 42)
- Articles 72 and 161, Constitution of IndiaMercy petitions to the President and the Governor must be processed promptly. The executive must forward them with the required documents without undue delay. (¶¶ 21, 42, 43)
- Sections 413 and 414 (Sections 453 and 454, BNSS, 2023), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A death sentence cannot be executed unless the Sessions Court issues a warrant. Before doing so, the court must confirm that the sentence is final and all remedies are exhausted or consciously given up, after notice to the convict. Long unexplained delay by the Sessions Court in issuing the warrant counts toward an Article 21 violation. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 32, 33, 39, 40)
Held
- Following Triveniben and Shatrughan Chauhan, undue, unexplained and inordinate delay in executing a death sentence entitles the convict to seek relief. Only delay after the sentence is finally confirmed counts, because time spent in the judicial process is not delay in execution. Agonising delay cannot be excused on the ground of the gravity of the crime. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23)
- Before issuing a warrant under Sections 413 and 414 CrPC, the Sessions Court must issue notice to the convict, inform him of available remedies, provide legal aid if needed, and allow reasonable time (which can be seven days) to decide whether to pursue them. Once remedies are exhausted or consciously given up, the warrant must issue without delay and with priority. (¶¶ 24, 25)
- The same principles apply where the Sessions Court delays issuing the warrant after rejection of the mercy petitions. Keeping the convict under the threat of execution for an inordinate time violates Article 21 and justifies commutation to life imprisonment. (¶ 26)
- No fixed period makes delay inordinate; that depends on the facts and on the effect on the particular convict. Two years may not be fatal in one case, while six months may justify commutation in another, for example for an aged and ailing convict. (¶ 28)
- On the facts, the State Home Department let the Governor's mercy petitions lie for about five months and prepared its note only from documents it already had. The period from forwarding the petitions to the Union Government until February 2017 was wholly unexplained. The Sessions Court and the State took from June 2017 to April 2019 to obtain the warrant, which the State could have sought by a simple application through the Public Prosecutor. The time taken by the Governor and the President themselves was not unreasonable. (¶¶ 30, 31, 33, 34)
- The delays at the three stages must be considered together. Even excluding the time the constitutional functionaries took, the delay exceeded three years and was unexplained and inordinate, so the High Court's commutation to a fixed term of 35 years could not be faulted. Whether the convicts were kept in solitary confinement was not decided. (¶¶ 35, 41)
- Victims have a right to prompt and proper investigation but no right to insist on capital punishment. The executive cannot be lax in carrying out sentences, so directions were issued to prevent administrative delay. (¶ 37)
- The Allahabad High Court's procedure in PUDR v. Union of India, approved in Shabnam, is mandatory. It requires notice to the convict before a warrant issues, a warrant with an exact date and time, immediate supply of the warrant, and legal aid. The Court added that Sessions Courts should list the disposed-of case on receiving the High Court's order and track appeals, review and mercy petitions. The State must apply on the judicial side, not by letter, for the warrant, and there must be at least fifteen clear days between the convict's receipt of the warrant and execution. (¶¶ 39, 40, 43)
Result
Appeals dismissed; the High Court's commutation of the death sentences to a fixed term of 35 years upheld. All States and Union Territories were directed to set up dedicated mercy-petition cells, gather specified documents, correspond by email and issue executive orders, reporting compliance within three months. Guidelines were issued for Sessions Courts issuing execution warrants, and the matter was listed on 17.03.2025 to consider compliance.