Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Due to 12-Year Delay in Mercy Petition: Mahendra Nath Das vs. Union of India (2013)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 1, 2013
Citation: (2013) INSC 312
Judges: G.S. Singhvi, J., Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
Can a significant delay in processing a mercy petition justify commuting a death sentence? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this question in a case involving a man convicted of a gruesome murder. The core issue was whether a 12-year delay in deciding the petitioner’s mercy plea warranted a reduction of his death sentence to life imprisonment. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya.

Case Background

Mahendra Nath Das was convicted of murdering Rajen Das in 1990 and initially sentenced to life imprisonment. While on bail for this crime, he committed another murder, killing Hare Kanta Das, a truck owner. For this second murder, the trial court sentenced him to death, describing the crime as “most foul and gruesome.” The High Court upheld the death sentence, and the Supreme Court also confirmed it in 1999. Following this, the appellant filed a mercy petition with the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted Mahendra Nath Das for the murder of Rajen Das and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Subsequently, the same court convicted him for the murder of Hare Kanta Das and sentenced him to death. The High Court dismissed appeals against both convictions, confirming the death sentence. The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal against the confirmation of the death sentence. The appellant then filed a mercy petition to the President of India, which was initially accepted by the President, but later rejected.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Article 72 of the Constitution of India, which grants the President the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offense. The President exercises this power on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The Supreme Court also considered previous judgments related to delays in executing death sentences.

Article 72 of the Constitution states: “The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The 12-year delay in deciding the mercy petition was sufficient grounds to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.
• The High Court erred in not applying the principles established in previous cases regarding delays in mercy petitions.

Intervener’s Arguments:

• The delay of over a decade in the disposal of the mercy petition by the President is sufficient for commutation of the sentence of death into life imprisonment.

Additional Solicitor General’s Arguments:

• The second murder committed by the appellant was gruesome and barbaric.
• The Supreme Court should not commute the death sentence simply because of a long delay between filing and disposal of the mercy petition.
• The final decision by the President on 8.5.2011 should not be faulted on the ground of delay, even though the previous President had a different opinion.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the 12-year delay in the disposal of the mercy petition was sufficient for commutation of the sentence of death into life imprisonment.
2. Whether the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court committed an error by dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several key cases and legal provisions:

Cases:

• Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973) 1 SCC 20 – Supreme Court of India
• Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. (1979) 3 SCC 464 – Supreme Court of India
• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 – Supreme Court of India
• Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107 – Supreme Court of India
• T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (1983) 2 SCC 68 – Supreme Court of India
• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 – Supreme Court of India
• Sher Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 344 – Supreme Court of India
• Javed Ahmed Pawala v. State of Maharashtra (1985) 1 SCC 275 – Supreme Court of India
• Mahesh v. State of M.P. (1987) 3 SCC 80 – Supreme Court of India
• Triveniben v. State of Gujarat (1989) 1 SCC 678 – Supreme Court of India
• Madhu Mehta v. Union of India (1989) 3 SCR 775 – Supreme Court of India
• Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. (1991) 3 SCC 471 – Supreme Court of India
• Daya Singh v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 61 – Supreme Court of India
• Shivaji Jaising Babar v. State of Maharashtra (1991) 4 SCC 375 – Supreme Court of India
• Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B. (1994) 2 SCC 220 – Supreme Court of India
• Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of Gujarat (1994) 4 SCC 353 – Supreme Court of India
• Ravji v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 2 SCC 175 – Supreme Court of India
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Munna Choubey (2005) 2 SCC 710 – Supreme Court of India
• Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of A.P. (2006) 8 SCC 161 – Supreme Court of India
• Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767 – Supreme Court of India
• Narayan Dutt v. State of Punjab (2011) 4 SCC 353 – Supreme Court of India
• Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 6 SCC 195 – Supreme Court of India

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Triveniben v. State of Gujarat (1989) 1 SCC 678* to reiterate that undue delay in the execution of a death sentence can be a ground for commutation.
• The Court followed Madhu Mehta v. Union of India (1989) 3 SCR 775* and Daya Singh v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 61*, where the Supreme Court had commuted death sentences due to inordinate delays in mercy petition disposals.
• The Court distinguished Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 6 SCC 195* stating that the facts of the present case are different.
• The Court overruled the view taken by the High Court of Madras, Rajasthan and Bombay that delay alone was conclusive for commuting death sentence to life.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the significant and unexplained delay in the disposal of the mercy petition. The Court noted that the President was not fully informed about the previous President’s decision to accept the mercy petition. This procedural lapse, combined with the excessive delay, weighed heavily in favor of commuting the death sentence.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• A significant and unexplained delay in processing a mercy petition can be grounds for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment.
• The President must be fully informed of all relevant facts and previous decisions when considering a mercy petition.
• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of timely justice and fair procedures in cases involving capital punishment.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the rejection of the appellant’s mercy petition and commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an inordinate and unexplained delay in the disposal of a mercy petition can be a valid ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. This judgment reinforces the principle that delays in the judicial process, especially in matters of life and death, must be scrutinized carefully. This case also highlights the importance of procedural fairness in the decision-making process of the executive.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court commuted Mahendra Nath Das’s death sentence to life imprisonment, citing a 12-year delay in the disposal of his mercy petition and procedural lapses. This judgment underscores the importance of timely and fair processes in cases involving capital punishment and reinforces the principle that excessive delays can warrant a commutation of a death sentence.