Case Brief: Smt.Triveniben & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
| CASE NAME | Smt.Triveniben & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat |
| CASE NAME (Also known as) | Death Penalty Case |
| CITATION | 1989 AIR 1335, 1989 SCR (1) 509 |
| COURT | The Supreme Court of India |
| BENCH | Oza, G.L. (J), Dutt, M.M. (J), Singh, K.N.(J), Shetty, K.J. (J), Sharma, L.M. (J) |
| APPELLANTS | Smt. Triveniben & Ors. |
| RESPONDENTS | State of Gujarat |
| DECIDED ON | decided on 7th February 1989 |
Introduction:
Death Penalty Case: Articles 14, 21, and 226 all in the present case. Since this case concerns the application of the death penalty, an accused individual may submit a mercy petition to the Governor and President of India within a short window of time after receiving a death sentence. Applying the death penalty is the subject of this lawsuit. When a person is found guilty and given the death penalty, they have the option to file a mercy plea with the Governor and President of India; however, the appeal process takes some time.
Facts:
In Sessions Case No. 57 of 1980, the Sessions Court in Rajkot sentenced the condemned prisoner to death for the triple murder of Ashaben Narendra Dave, Gaurishankar Ishwarlal, and Vibha Narendra Dave. In Confirmation Case No. 1 of 1981, the High Court upheld this ruling, and the ensuing Criminal Appeal No. 826 of 1981 was later dismissed in 1982. In spite of legal obstacles, such as the Supreme Court’s rejection of a Special Leave Petition on June 27, 1982, the mother of the condemned prisoner filed Special Criminal Application No. 1286 of 1988 in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution, citing Articles 14 and 21.
On August 16, 1982, the Governor of Gujarat denied the Mercy Petition, which had been first filed on August 7, 1982. In a similar vein, on April 21, 1983, the President of India rejected the Mercy Petition. The respondents state that there is no cause for complaint because these Mercy Petitions were denied in a timely manner. The mother of the convicted prisoner, the petitioner, filed the present Special Criminal Application under Article 226 in an attempt to obtain a writ of mandamus or other suitable writ. Directing the President of India to reexamine the Mercy Petitions dated 7-8-1982, 18-10-1985, and 10-5-1989 is the aim of this measure. The petitioner bases its argument on the ruling in Kehar Singh and Others v. Union of India (UOI) and Others.
It is significant to remember that the petitioner had previously filed Special Criminal Application No. 1286 of 1988, which addressed the same remedy with regard to the Mercy Petition dated 18-10-1985. In that instance, the petitioner asked for a postponement of the execution until the Indian President rendered a definitive decision about the 18-10-1985 Mercy Petition. The petitioner stated that the Mercy Petition was filed on October 18, 1985, and that on December 13, 1985, while on a visit to the State of Gujarat, he personally delivered it to Hon. Shri Gnyani Zailsingh, the President of India at the time.
Referencing legal precedents and requesting court involvement under the constitutional requirements of Articles 14 and 21, the latest application reiterates the petitioner’s ongoing appeal for reconsideration of the Mercy Petitions.
Issues:
- Is the accused entitled to request a life term in prison instead of the death penalty because of the protracted delay in carrying out the sentence that rendered it inexecutable?
- How should this delay be calculated from the beginning?
- What rights did convicted convicts who had been given death sentences but had not been put to death have?
- What other factors, in addition to the amount of time that passed before the punishment was carried out, should be taken into account?
Petitioner’s Arguments:
It is often forbidden to appeal a court decision on the basis that it violates a person’s basic rights. It is generally accepted that a court’s decision would not negatively affect citizens’ fundamental rights.
It is now required that the court give justification for the sentence it has given in the particular context of sentencing for the crime of murder. The death penalty is not applicable in ordinary murder cases; instead, they are reserved for unique circumstances and extraordinary situations. Only six crimes bear the death penalty at the moment, and even in those cases, it is regarded as a substitute punishment.
Criminal law is always evolving to keep up with cultural shifts. A punishment that is universally accepted in one period may be viewed as cruel and undesirable in another. Legislators, sensitive to the demands of the modern world, constantly revise laws to take these changing realities into account. As a result, the criminal code cannot be static and is heavily influenced by popular ideology.
Over time, there can come a point at which elected officials believe that the death penalty is unjustified and superfluous, even when used as a substitute punishment for murder. They are free to consider changing this alternative sentence, and the Constitution does not forbid them from doing so. This demonstrates a willingness to consider changes to the law that are consistent with changing society’s views and values.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The convicted person has the right, pursuant to Article 32, to petition the Court for relief if there has been an unjustified and protracted delay in the execution of the death sentence. Nevertheless, the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to investigating the cause of the delay and the events that have transpired after the judgment was finally upheld by the legal system. The Court lacks the authority to reexamine or dispute the decision made by the court in confirming the death penalty.
However, the Court retains the authority to assess whether there was an undue delay, taking into account all relevant facts. The Court may decide, in light of this evaluation, whether the death penalty should be carried out as originally mandated or if it should be modified to life imprisonment.
It is essential to underscore that the death penalty does not inherently become unenforceable due to any predetermined or definite time of delay. The Court will carefully consider the particulars of each case before determining whether the execution was proper or if a life sentence should be commuted.
Judgement:
The court has clearly said that people who are facing the death penalty have the right to petition the court under Article 32 of the Constitution to seek remedies if there are unjustifiable delays in the execution of their sentence. The court expressly considers the period from the date of the proclaimed verdict onward when determining whether delays warrant reducing a death sentence to life in prison. This sophisticated approach acknowledges that evaluating post-judgment delays is crucial to evaluating whether the death penalty was initially justified.
The condemned prisoner, facing the prospect of execution, is well within their rights to approach the court and request an examination of whether it would be just and fair to proceed with the implementation of the death sentence, particularly considering any inordinate delays that may have occurred. The death penalty prisoner must be made aware that the Sessions Court’s decision in a case involving the death penalty is not final until the High Court confirms it. In the judicial procedure, the High Court’s confirmation is very important. Crucially, the court has stressed that the convicted individual may be entitled to apply for relief under Article 32 if there are excessive delays in carrying out the death sentence. This demonstrates the court’s understanding of the psychological and emotional damage that extended periods of uncertainty may inflict on a person who is about to be executed.
Moreover, the condemned prisoner should be aware that the judgment delivered by the Sessions Court does not attain finality until it receives confirmation from the High Court. The legal system acknowledges that delays in the confirmation process may, in fact, call for a lighter penalty when considering the concepts of justice and fairness. The court’s position creates a legal structure that respects the rights of those who have been found guilty and are about to be executed. For people facing the death penalty, there are legal options thanks to the emphasis on evaluating post-judgment delays and the recognition that Sessions Court rulings are not final until verified by the High Court. This strategy respects the need for due process and deliberate thought in situations involving life and death, which is consistent with the larger ideals of justice and fairness.
Analysis and Conclusion:
The death sentence has long been a source of heated controversy, frequently coming up in legislative debates on whether or not it breaches Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal freedom. A aspect of this problem that was brought to light in a specific case is the idea that excessive delays in carrying out death sentences might cause psychological distress to prisoners who are already dealing with the possibility of going to death.
In this instance, the appellants’ attorney is requesting that the court step in and reduce the appellants’ death sentences to life in prison. The appellants’ unjustifiable two-year delay serves as the foundation for this plea. But the court clarifies—citing the Vaitheeswaran Case—that the “inordinate delay” referenced in that decision refers to delays in the executive branch’s review of mercy requests, not to delays in judicial procedures. As such, this distinction leads to the appeal’s rejection. Despite the fact that the appellants’ death sentence is not commuted, the case sets a precedent for taking execution delays into account when evaluating potential mitigating factors.
Together, these instances clarify the complex meaning of “process established by law.” They emphasise the need for a legal framework to deal with “the rarest of rare” circumstances, guaranteeing that political considerations do not influence the implementation of the death sentence. Not only does the Indian legal system support the need for a more reformative approach to punishment, but it also supports international initiatives to reconsider the use of the death penalty. The circumstances in prisoners need to be addressed and improved immediately, especially in India. It is important to ascertain that a person deemed “hardened” is a result of the gravity of the offence they committed, not a byproduct of flaws in the judicial system. The emphasis ought to shift from punitive actions to initiatives for rehabilitation that support offenders’ overall reformation inside the criminal justice system.
Furthermore, it is crucial to provide the victims’ urgent needs with first priority in these situations, given the changing legal and cultural viewpoints. The judicial system needs to take into account ways to help victims reintegrate into society and resume somewhat regular lives after a disaster. This change in emphasis aims to create a judicial system that is not merely punishing but also compassionate and rehabilitative, acknowledging the wider effects that crime has on people and communities. The case and the questions it raises show the intricate relationships that exist between human rights, the law, and the moral foundations of punishment. It emphasises how crucial it is to have a comprehensive strategy that goes beyond punitive measures in order to create a legal system that is not only just but also mindful of the mental and emotional well-being of all parties involved.
Together, these instances, particularly in the Death Penalty Case, help clarify the evolving and complex interpretation of “procedure established by law.” The Death Penalty Case emphasized the urgent need for a more structured and principled legal framework to govern the implementation of capital punishment, especially in “the rarest of rare” cases. It underlined that political considerations or executive delays must not interfere with the just and timely execution of the death sentence. Through the lens of this Death Penalty Case, the Indian judiciary reinforced its stand on maintaining fairness, proportionality, and due process within the criminal justice system.
The Death Penalty Case also highlights India’s gradual shift towards a more reformative and rehabilitative model of justice. While the legal framework still allows for capital punishment, the case aligns with global legal perspectives and international human rights standards that advocate for minimizing or abolishing the death penalty. In the context of the Death Penalty Case, it becomes evident that prison conditions and the treatment of death row inmates need immediate improvement. The system must ensure that individuals labeled as “hardened” are not victims of systemic neglect or procedural failures, but instead are assessed based on the severity and context of their crimes.
A broader implication of the Death Penalty Case is the shift in focus from purely punitive approaches to reformatory efforts aimed at the long-term rehabilitation of offenders. Rehabilitation should be central to the criminal justice philosophy, ensuring that even those facing capital punishment are treated with dignity and provided opportunities for introspection and reform. This approach reflects the essence of constitutional morality and respects the sanctity of life as enshrined under Article 21.
Furthermore, in light of the Death Penalty Case, it is equally crucial to prioritize the immediate and long-term needs of the victims and their families. Changing cultural and legal paradigms demand that victims receive not only justice but also psychological, social, and economic support to reintegrate into society. The Death Penalty Case pushes the legal system to rethink its duty—beyond punishment—and work towards a more empathetic and holistic form of justice. This includes balancing retributive elements with restorative practices that heal both the individual and the community.
Ultimately, the Death Penalty Case and the constitutional questions it raises reveal the deeply interwoven relationship between justice, human dignity, and legal accountability. It reiterates the necessity for a thoughtful, inclusive, and transparent legal process that upholds the mental, emotional, and legal rights of everyone involved. By fostering a system that is both just and humane, the Death Penalty Case becomes a landmark in the continuous evolution of India’s legal conscience.
🔗 Read the full judgment here:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1788908/
