Are Prosecutors Given Incentives For Securing Death Penalty? Supreme Court Asks MP Govt
The Supreme Court, on Friday asked the State of Madhya Pradesh to place on record whether it has adopted any policy to grant incentivises and increments to the Public Prosecution based on the volume of their cases wherein death sentence is awarded. On 29.03.2022, while hearing an application seeking permission for mitigation investigators to interview the petitioner in prison, a...
The Supreme Court, on Friday asked the State of Madhya Pradesh to place on record whether it has adopted any policy to grant incentivises and increments to the Public Prosecution based on the volume of their cases wherein death sentence is awarded.
On 29.03.2022, while hearing an application seeking permission for mitigation investigators to interview the petitioner in prison, a Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha had directed the Supreme Court Registry to register an independent Writ Petition, wherein it would consider the larger issue and lay down norms and guidelines pertaining to the process of collecting and scrutinising mitigation information in death penalty matters.
The application filed by Project 39A indicated that there is a need for elaborate investigation into the mitigating factors in death penalty matters. It submitted that as held in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 4 SCC 190, the accused ought to be given an opportunity to lead evidence on the question of sentence. Therefore, it is imperative to conduct an in-depth examination into the mitigating circumstances so that effective representation, as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution, can be provided to the accused. The application also relied on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684, wherein the Apex Court had bestowed a duty on the Courts to consider the aggravating as well as the mitigating circumstances. Given the scope of enquiry of the Probation Officer is quite limited, it also asserted the need to engage trained mitigation investigators.
The Bench, primarily, took note of the following issues raised in the application -
- a. Bachan Singh casts a duty on the Courts to consider all mitigating circumstances in a case pertaining to death penalty;
- b. The report of the probation officer does not reflect the complete profile of the accused and are often based on interviews conducted as the fag end of the trial;
- c. A competent person can be permitted to interview the accused at the begging of the trial, who could then provide effective assistance at the time of sentencing.
Upon consideration the Bench thought that it was a fit case to issue notice to the Attorney General for India and Member Secretary, National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) seeking their suggestions. It appointed Senior Advocate, Mr. Siddhartha Dave and Advocate, Mr. K. Parameshwar as Amicus Curiae to assist the Bench.
Appearing before the Bench, on Friday, Attorney General for India, Mr. K.K. Venugopal submitted that he would assist it by placing on record the document relevant to assess similar positions in other jurisdictions.
Amicus Curiae, Mr. K. Parameshwar, informed the Bench that the State of Madhya Pradesh has an existing policy where under the Public Prosecutors are given incentives and increments based on the volume of cases prosecuted by them in which death sentence is awarded.
The Bench asked Advocate, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh, to place on record such policy, if any, and also make submissions defending the same.
The matter is to be next listed on 10.05.2022.
Case Title: X v. State of Madhya Pradesh WP(C) No. 142 of 2022
Click Here To Read/Download Order