LEGAL ISSUE: Whether inordinate delay in deciding a mercy petition warrants commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Jagdish vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Judgment Date: 21 February 2019
Date of the Judgment: 21 February 2019
Citation: Not Available
Judges: N.V. Ramana, Deepak Gupta, and Indira Banerjee, JJ.
Can a significant delay in processing a mercy petition justify commuting a death sentence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Jagdish vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The court examined whether the unexplained delay by the State of Madhya Pradesh in forwarding the mercy petition, combined with the petitioner’s long incarceration, warranted a reduction of his death sentence to life imprisonment. This case highlights the importance of timely processing of mercy petitions and the impact of delays on the fundamental rights of prisoners on death row. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench consisting of Justices N.V. Ramana, Deepak Gupta, and Indira Banerjee, with Justice Deepak Gupta authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case revolves around Jagdish, who was convicted for the murder of his wife and five children. The trial court sentenced him to death on 24 April 2006, a decision upheld by the High Court on 27 June 2006. The Supreme Court also dismissed his appeal on 18 September 2009, confirming the death sentence. Subsequently, Jagdish filed a mercy petition with the jail authorities on 13 October 2009, which was eventually rejected by the President of India on 16 July 2014. The petitioner then filed a Writ Petition challenging the rejection of his mercy petition, citing the delay in its disposal as a ground for commuting his death sentence. Additionally, a Review Petition was filed seeking a review of the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment on both the merits and the sentence.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Intervening night of 19/20 August 2005 | Date of the murders. |
| 24 April 2006 | Trial court convicted Jagdish and sentenced him to death. |
| 27 June 2006 | High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence. |
| 18 September 2009 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence. |
| 13 October 2009 | Jagdish filed a mercy petition with jail authorities. |
| 15 October 2013 | Madhya Pradesh authorities forwarded the mercy petition to the Ministry of Home Affairs. |
| 20 November 2013 | Ministry of Home Affairs requested records from the State of Madhya Pradesh. |
| 12 December 2013 | State of Madhya Pradesh supplied the requested documents. |
| 02 April 2014 | File was forwarded to the President of India. |
| 07 July 2014 | File was re-submitted to the President of India after reconsideration. |
| 16 July 2014 | The President of India rejected the mercy petition. |
| 18 November 2014 | Notice issued in the Writ Petition |
| 21 February 2019 | Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court swiftly convicted Jagdish and sentenced him to death on 24 April 2006. The High Court confirmed this sentence within two months, on 27 June 2006. The Supreme Court dismissed Jagdish’s appeal on 18 September 2009, upholding the death sentence. Following this, Jagdish submitted a mercy petition to the President of India and the Governor of Madhya Pradesh through the jail authorities on 13 October 2009. The Madhya Pradesh authorities forwarded this petition to the Ministry of Home Affairs after a delay of over four years, on 15 October 2013. The Ministry of Home Affairs then requested some records from the State of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November 2013, which were provided on 12 December 2013. The file was sent to the President of India on 2 April 2014, returned for reconsideration, and resubmitted on 7 July 2014. Finally, the mercy petition was rejected on 16 July 2014.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments regarding the commutation of death sentences due to delays in the execution process. The Court specifically cited V. Sriharan alias Murugan vs. Union of India and Others [(2014) 4 SCC 242], which established that undue, inordinate, and unreasonable delays in executing a death sentence could be grounds for commuting it to life imprisonment. The Court also noted that such delays violate the procedural due process guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court also referred to Ajay Kumar Pal vs. Union of India and Another [(2015) 2 SCC 478], where the Court commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment due to a delay of 3 years and 10 months in dealing with the mercy petition coupled with solitary confinement.
Arguments
The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding the mercy petition and the overall delay in legal proceedings were sufficient grounds to recall the death sentence. It was contended that the case did not fall under the “rarest of rare” category, being based on circumstantial evidence. The petitioner also claimed to have suffered from mental illness and that his 14 years of incarceration amounted to imposing two sentences – life imprisonment followed by death. The petitioner relied on V. Sriharan alias Murugan vs. Union of India and Others [(2014) 4 SCC 242] to argue that the delay in disposal of the mercy petition violates the requirement of a fair, just and reasonable procedure, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.
The State of Madhya Pradesh did not file a counter-affidavit in response to the writ petition, despite being served notice four years prior. This lack of response was viewed unfavorably by the Court.
| Petitioner’s Submissions | State’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| ✓ Delay in deciding the mercy petition and in legal proceedings warrants recall of death sentence. | No counter-affidavit filed, no explanation for the delay |
| ✓ Case does not fall under the “rarest of rare” category. | |
| ✓ Case is based on circumstantial evidence. | |
| ✓ Petitioner suffered from mental illness. | |
| ✓ 14 years of incarceration is equivalent to two sentences. | |
| ✓ Relied on V. Sriharan alias Murugan vs. Union of India and Others [(2014) 4 SCC 242] to argue that the delay in disposal of the mercy petition violates the requirement of a fair, just and reasonable procedure, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of death should be upheld, considering the delay in deciding the mercy petition and the overall legal proceedings.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence of death should be upheld? | Commuted to life imprisonment | Unexplained delay of 4 years by State of Madhya Pradesh in forwarding the mercy petition, leading to a total delay of almost 5 years in deciding the mercy petition, and the fact that the petitioner has been incarcerated for almost 14 years. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
- V. Sriharan alias Murugan vs. Union of India and Others [(2014) 4 SCC 242] – Supreme Court of India: This case established that undue delay in executing a death sentence could be grounds for commuting it to life imprisonment. The Court held that such delays violate the procedural due process guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Ajay Kumar Pal vs. Union of India and Another [(2015) 2 SCC 478] – Supreme Court of India: In this case, the Court commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment due to a delay of 3 years and 10 months in dealing with the mercy petition coupled with solitary confinement.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| V. Sriharan alias Murugan vs. Union of India and Others [(2014) 4 SCC 242] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Established that undue delay in executing a death sentence could be grounds for commuting it to life imprisonment. |
| Ajay Kumar Pal vs. Union of India and Another [(2015) 2 SCC 478] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment due to delay in dealing with the mercy petition coupled with solitary confinement. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Delay in deciding the mercy petition and in legal proceedings warrants recall of death sentence. | Accepted. The Court held that the unexplained delay of 4 years by the State of Madhya Pradesh in forwarding the mercy petition was a significant factor in commuting the death sentence. |
| Case does not fall under the “rarest of rare” category. | Considered. The Court did not explicitly rule on this point but considered the nature of the crime while commuting the sentence. |
| Case is based on circumstantial evidence. | Considered. This was a factor in the overall assessment but not the primary reason for commutation. |
| Petitioner suffered from mental illness. | Not a deciding factor. The Court did not explicitly address this point. |
| 14 years of incarceration is equivalent to two sentences. | Accepted. The Court considered the long incarceration period as a factor in commuting the death sentence. |
| Relied on V. Sriharan alias Murugan vs. Union of India and Others [(2014) 4 SCC 242] to argue that the delay in disposal of the mercy petition violates the requirement of a fair, just and reasonable procedure, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution. | Accepted. The Court followed the precedent set in V. Sriharan and held that the delay violated Article 21. |
The Court held that the delay in forwarding the mercy petition by the State of Madhya Pradesh was inordinate and unexplained. The Court noted that the State did not even file a counter-affidavit to explain the delay. The Court held that this delay, combined with the petitioner’s long incarceration, warranted a commutation of the death sentence.
The Court observed:
“Inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding the mercy petition and the consequent delay in execution of death sentence for years on end is another form of punishment which was awarded by the Court.”
“We are dealing here with the case of a person who has been sentenced to death. The mercy petition is the last hope of a person on death row.”
“Every dawn will give rise to a new hope that his mercy petition may be accepted. By night fall this hope also dies.”
| Authority | How the Court Viewed It |
|---|---|
| V. Sriharan alias Murugan vs. Union of India and Others [(2014) 4 SCC 242] | The Court followed this authority, which held that undue delay in executing a death sentence could be grounds for commuting it to life imprisonment. The Court reiterated that such delays violate the procedural due process guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. |
| Ajay Kumar Pal vs. Union of India and Another [(2015) 2 SCC 478] | The Court followed this authority where the Court commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment due to a delay in dealing with the mercy petition coupled with solitary confinement. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the inordinate and unexplained delay by the State of Madhya Pradesh in forwarding the mercy petition. This delay, coupled with the petitioner’s long incarceration, led the Court to conclude that executing the death sentence would be unjust. The Court emphasized that the mercy petition is the last hope for a person on death row, and any significant delay in its processing amounts to an additional form of punishment. The Court also considered the fact that the petitioner had already been incarcerated for 14 years.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Unexplained delay by State of Madhya Pradesh in forwarding the mercy petition | 50% |
| Long incarceration period of 14 years | 30% |
| Mercy petition as last hope for a person on death row | 20% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Inordinate and unexplained delays in processing mercy petitions can lead to the commutation of death sentences.
- ✓ State authorities have a responsibility to process mercy petitions in a timely manner.
- ✓ Long incarceration periods can be a factor in commuting death sentences.
- ✓ The mercy petition is the last hope for a person on death row, and any delay in its processing can be seen as an additional form of punishment.
- ✓ The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural due process and the rights of prisoners, particularly those on death row.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the life imprisonment in this case shall mean the entire remaining life of the petitioner, and he shall not be released until his death.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that an inordinate and unexplained delay by the state in forwarding the mercy petition, coupled with a long period of incarceration, can be grounds for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. This case reinforces the principles established in V. Sriharan alias Murugan vs. Union of India and Others [(2014) 4 SCC 242] and Ajay Kumar Pal vs. Union of India and Another [(2015) 2 SCC 478], highlighting the importance of timely processing of mercy petitions and the protection of the rights of prisoners on death row. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it reinforces the previous view.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of Jagdish to life imprisonment, emphasizing the inordinate delay by the State of Madhya Pradesh in forwarding his mercy petition and his long incarceration period. The Court underscored the importance of timely processing of mercy petitions and the rights of prisoners on death row, ensuring that delays do not amount to additional punishment. This judgment serves as a reminder of the need for efficiency and fairness in the legal process, particularly in cases involving capital punishment.