Supreme Court clarifies maintainability of appeals against Single Judge orders in death penalty delay cases: Jasbir Singh vs State of Punjab (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 09 December 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 734

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Can a second round of litigation be initiated based on delays in the disposal of mercy petitions after the death penalty has been confirmed by the highest court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on whether an appeal can be filed against a Single Judge’s order in such cases. The Court clarified that such appeals are maintainable, distinguishing them from the original criminal proceedings. This judgment clarifies the procedural aspects of death penalty cases where delays in mercy petitions are alleged.

Case Background

The appellants, Jasbir Singh and Vikram Singh, along with Sonia, were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur on 20 December 2006, for offenses under Sections 302 (murder), 364A (kidnapping for ransom), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), read with 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were sentenced to death. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court of India also upheld the death sentence for Jasbir and Vikram Singh, while modifying Sonia’s sentence to life imprisonment.

Following the affirmation of their death sentences, the appellants filed a writ petition (CWP No.21274 of 2016) in the High Court, arguing that the undue delay in disposing of their mercy petitions warranted commutation of their death sentences to life imprisonment. This writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court on 26 July 2019. The appellants then filed Letters Patent Appeals against the Single Judge’s order, which were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, stating that such appeals were not maintainable.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants, after their death sentences were upheld by the Supreme Court, filed a writ petition before a Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, arguing that the delay in deciding their mercy petitions was a supervening circumstance that warranted commuting their death sentences to life imprisonment. The Single Judge dismissed this writ petition. The appellants then appealed to a Division Bench of the same High Court, which dismissed the appeal, stating that an intra-court appeal was not maintainable against a Single Judge’s order in a criminal matter.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the maintainability of intra-court appeals under the Letters Patent, specifically in the context of writ petitions dealing with delays in mercy petitions. The Court also considered the concept of “supervening circumstances,” particularly delays in the execution of death sentences, as a ground for commutation.

The relevant legal provisions include:

• Sections 302, 364A, 201 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These sections pertain to the offences of murder, kidnapping for ransom, causing disappearance of evidence, and criminal conspiracy, respectively, for which the appellants were initially convicted.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which the appellants argued was violated due to the delay in the execution of their death sentences.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the delay in the disposal of their mercy petitions constituted a “supervening circumstance” that warranted the commutation of their death sentence to life imprisonment. They relied on the principle established in Shatrughan Chauhan & Another v. Union of India & Others, (2014) 3 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court recognized that undue delay in the execution of a death sentence could be a ground for commutation.
• They contended that the writ petition filed by them was not a continuation of the original criminal proceedings but an independent proceeding based on events that occurred after the determination of guilt. Therefore, an intra-court appeal against the Single Judge’s decision was maintainable.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents, primarily the State of Punjab, argued that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable because the Single Judge had exercised criminal jurisdiction while dealing with the writ petition. They relied on the decision in Ram Kishan Fauzi v. State of Haryana & Others, (2017) 5 SCC 533, where the Supreme Court had held that no appeal lies against an order passed by a Single Judge in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.
• They contended that the writ petition was integrally connected with the criminal proceedings and that the Single Judge was essentially reviewing the criminal matter.

The innovativeness of the appellant’s argument lies in distinguishing the writ petition concerning the delay in mercy petitions from the original criminal proceedings. They argued that the writ petition was an independent proceeding based on events that occurred after the determination of guilt, thereby making an intra-court appeal maintainable.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether an intra-court appeal under the Letters Patent is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in a writ petition seeking commutation of a death sentence based on the ground of delay in disposal of mercy petitions.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Vikram Singh & Others v. State of Punjab (2010) 3 SCC 56 – Supreme Court of India: This case was the original appeal where the Supreme Court confirmed the death sentence of the appellants.
• Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Others (2014) 9 SCC 737 – Supreme Court of India: This case led to a further review petition by the appellants, which was also dismissed.
• Shatrughan Chauhan & Another v. Union of India & Others (2014) 3 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India: This case established that undue delay in the execution of a death sentence could be a ground for commutation. The Court relied on this case to define “supervening circumstances”.
• Ram Kishan Fauzi v. State of Haryana & Others (2017) 5 SCC 533 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the High Court to hold that no appeal lies against the order of a Single Judge in criminal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the writ petition in the present case was not integrally connected with the criminal proceedings.

Legal Provisions:

• Sections 302, 364A, 201 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These sections were the basis of the original conviction of the appellants.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article was invoked by the appellants to argue that the delay in the execution of the death sentence violated their right to life.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Shatrughan Chauhan & Another v. Union of India & Others (2014) 3 SCC 1* to emphasize that undue delay in the execution of a death sentence could be a ground for commutation, establishing the concept of “supervening circumstances”.
• The Court distinguished Ram Kishan Fauzi v. State of Haryana & Others (2017) 5 SCC 533*, stating that the present case was different as it dealt with supervening circumstances, not a continuation of the original criminal proceedings.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that the legal process is fair and just, even in cases involving serious crimes and death sentences. The Court emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to a speedy and fair process, even in post-conviction stages. The Court was concerned that if such matters are listed before a Single Judge of the High Court from whose decision a further intra-Court appeal would be maintainable in certain cases, the entire process would lead to tremendous delay.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

✓ Intra-court appeals are maintainable against a Single Judge’s order in writ petitions concerning delays in mercy petitions in death penalty cases.

✓ Such writ petitions are considered independent proceedings, distinct from the original criminal proceedings.

✓ The judgment emphasizes the importance of speedy disposal of mercy petitions in death penalty cases.

✓ High Courts are encouraged to list such writ petitions before a Division Bench to expedite the process.

This judgment clarifies the procedural aspects of death penalty cases where delays in mercy petitions are alleged. It ensures that convicts have a legal avenue to challenge undue delays, reinforcing the principles of fairness and justice in the legal system. This ruling will likely reduce delays in such cases by streamlining the process and ensuring that these matters are dealt with expeditiously by a Division Bench of the High Court.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that copies of this order be sent to all the High Courts. The Court also requested the High Court of Punjab & Haryana to dispose of the pending Letters Patent Appeals as early as possible, preferably within three months from the receipt of the order. The Court also observed that if the concerned Rules or Procedure or the provisions of the Letters Patent Appeal permit so, the High Courts may do well to list the original writ petitions in the second round of litigation before the Division Bench itself for consideration.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a writ petition seeking commutation of a death sentence based on the ground of delay in disposal of mercy petitions is an independent proceeding, distinct from the original criminal proceedings. Therefore, an intra-court appeal against the order of a Single Judge in such a writ petition is maintainable under the Letters Patent. This clarifies the legal position regarding the maintainability of appeals in such cases.

The Supreme Court clarified that such appeals are maintainable, distinguishing them from the original criminal proceedings. This judgment clarifies the procedural aspects of death penalty cases where delays in mercy petitions are alleged.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Jasbir Singh vs State of Punjab clarifies that intra-court appeals are maintainable against a Single Judge’s order in writ petitions concerning delays in mercy petitions in death penalty cases. The Court distinguished such writ petitions from the original criminal proceedings, emphasizing that they are independent proceedings based on supervening circumstances. This ruling ensures that convicts have a legal avenue to challenge undue delays, reinforcing the principles of fairness and justice in the legal system. The Court’s directions to expedite the disposal of such cases will likely reduce delays and ensure that these matters are dealt with expeditiously by a Division Bench of the High Court.