Article 21 | Death Penalty Must Be Commuted If Inordinate Delay In Execution Is Caused By Circumstances Beyond Convict's Control: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (December 9) held that inordinate delay in execution of death sentence have a dehumanizing effect on convicts and when such delays are caused by factors beyond the prisoners' control, the death sentence must be commuted to life imprisonment.

“It is well established that Article 21 of the Constitution does not end with the pronouncement of the sentence but extends to the stage of execution of that sentence. An inordinate delay in the execution of the sentence of death has a dehumanising effect on the accused. An inordinate and unexplained delay caused by circumstances beyond the prisoners' control mandates the commutation of a death sentence”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih outlined several legal principles to be followed by the judiciary and executive authorities, emphasizing the protection of constitutional rights of death row convicts under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court made these observations while dismissing appeals by the State of Maharashtra challenging the 2019 Bombay High Court judgment that commuted the death sentences of two convicts, Purshottam Borate and Pradeep Kokade, to life imprisonment with a fixed term of 35 years. The case involves the 2007 gang rape and murder of a 22-year-old Pune BPO employee.

The Supreme Court reserved the judgment after raising several questions about the procedural lapses and delays in this case.

Right to Challenge Delay

Convicts facing undue, unexplained, and inordinate delays in the execution of death sentences may approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, the Court clarified that it would not revisit the judicial findings upholding the death sentence but would examine all circumstances to decide the question of in-ordinate delay.

"Undue, unexplained and inordinate delay in execution of the sentence of death will entitle the convict to approach this Court under Article 32. However, this Court will only examine the nature of the delay caused and circumstances that ensued after the judicial process finally confirmed the sentence and will have no jurisdiction to reopen the conclusions reached by the Court while finally maintaining the sentence of death. This Court, however, may consider the question of inordinate delay in the light of all circumstances of the case to decide whether the execution of sentence should be carried out or should be commuted to imprisonment for life"

Suspense and Psychological Impact

The Court said that prolonged consideration of mercy petitions by the Governor or President creates “adverse physical conditions and psychological stress on the convict.” The Court held that such delays violate Article 21 and cannot be excused solely on the gravity of the crime.

“Keeping a convict in suspense while considering his mercy petitions by the Governor or the President for an inordinately long time will certainly cause agony to him/her…Therefore, this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 21 of the Constitution, must consider the effect of inordinate delay in disposal of the clemency petition by the highest Constitutional authorities and cannot excuse the agonising delay caused only on the basis of the gravity of the crime”, the Court held.

Delay and Dehumanization

The Court stated that inordinate delays in execution have a dehumanizing effect on convicts. When such delays are caused by factors beyond the prisoners' control, the death sentence must be commuted.

Sessions Court Responsibility

The Court held that inordinate delay in issuing execution warrants by the Sessions Court, as mandated by Sections 413 and 414 of the CrPC, violate Article 21 if they result in excessive mental and physical agony for the convict.

“After the order of rejection of mercy petitions is communicated to a convict, the sword of Damocles cannot be kept hanging on him for an inordinately long time. This can be very agonising, both mentally and physically. Such inordinate delay will violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. In such a case, this Court will be justified in commuting the death penalty into life imprisonment”, the Court held.

Case-Specific Determination of Delay

The Court said that a specific duration for what constitutes “inordinate” or “undue” delay cannot be defined, emphasizing that the determination must be case-specific, taking into account the circumstances and the impact on the convict.

High Court Jurisdiction

The Court emphasised that convicts can invoke the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge inordinate delays in execution. High Courts are to apply the same principles as outlined by the Supreme Court.

Executive Responsibility

The Court directed the executive to process mercy petitions expeditiously. Relevant documents should be promptly forwarded to the Governor or President to prevent unnecessary delays, the Court held.

The Court also laid down detailed procedural guidelines to be followed by the executive as well as the judiciary for handling mercy petitions and execution of death sentences to prevent delays in the process.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 2831-2832/2023

Case Title – State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade and Anr. with connected case

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 963

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment