Case Brief: Shatrughan Chauhan and Anr vs Union of India
| CASE NAME | Shatrughan Chauhan and Anr vs Union of India, 2014 3 SCC 1 |
| CASE NAME (Also known as) | 2014 AIR SCW 793, 2014 (3) SCC 1 |
| CITATION | Writ Petition (Criminal) no. 55 of 2013. |
| COURT | The Supreme Court of India. |
| BENCH | Hon’ble Justice P. Sathasivam, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh |
| APPELLANTS | Shatrughan Chauhan & anr. |
| RESPONDENTS | Union of India & ors. |
| DECIDED ON | decided on 21st January, 2014. |
Introduction:
Every civilised country recognises the power of pardoning as a humane and compassionate act that may be included into the judicial system. This concept states that the last constitutional remedy open to a guilty person after a court sentence is to petition the President for compassion. This procedure is part of India’s Constitutional structure. A criminal may petition the President of India under Article 72 for compassion, and the Governors of States may do the same under Article 161 of the Indian Constitution. Every prisoner and convict is guaranteed a right under Article 21 until their dying breath, and this right must be upheld even in the face of an impending execution. As a result, a convicted party may, as a last resort, submit a mercy plea; the judgment will be made in light of subsequent circumstances that are critical to the case.
The guilty party must specify the basis for their request for a pardon in the mercy petition. Even while these arguments might not be strong enough to clear the accused in court, they might be quite effective in convincing the president to grant mercy. During the consideration of the mercy petition, the court may take into account variables including the convict’s age, physical condition, or unintentional mistakes.
The Union of India v. Kehar Singh case highlighted the fact that a pardon from the President is an act of grace and cannot be regarded as a given. The public interest is served by the pardoning authority, which is consistent with the justification for all types of punishment. The power granted to the President under Article 72 and the Governors under Article 161 is a constitutional obligation that the people have given to the highest authority; it is neither a matter of grace nor privilege.
Facts:
The present case concerns the delay in handling the mercy petition, which was started by the relatives of the death prisoners, Suresh and Ramji, who were condemned to death in 1997 together with thirteen other people. Following the Supreme Court’s 2001 dismissal of their criminal appeal, the petitioners went on to submit a mercy plea with the Indian President and Governor that same year.
The petitioners and their family were not notified of the Governor’s decision to reject the mercy plea. The process of gathering all the required paperwork, trial court rulings, and details about the petitioners’ mercy petition’s status took over a decade.
Additionally, the President denied their request for compassion on February 8, 2013. However, no official confirmation was supplied by the appropriate authorities; thus, the petitioners didn’t hear about this judgment until two months later through news reports. In addition to a concurrent plea to commute the death sentences of all death prisoners to life imprisonment, the current lawsuit has been brought out to address the unjustified and protracted delay in resolving the mercy petition.
Issues:
- Is there any evidence that the death penalty defendants’ Article 21 was violated by the delay in processing the mercy petition?
- Is it possible for the Executive’s inability or delay to decide on a mercy petition submitted in accordance with Article 72/161 of the Constitution to serve as a valid justification for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
Arguments of both parties:
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The reasons put up by the petitioners are as follows:
1. The use of executive authority under Articles 72/161 of the Constitution has resulted in a breach of the basic rights of the petitioners.
2. The disputed executive orders against the petitioners were issued without taking into account the lengthy delay and other important supervening developments.
3. Prolonged delays in carrying out the death sentence would infringe upon the right to life as provided by Article 21, permitting the criminal to seek recourse from the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
4. The petitioners emphasise the value of human life and say that every effort should be used to protect it.
5. If there is an inexplicable delay in the execution of the death sentence, a petition submitted under Article 32 may be considered by the Court even in the absence of a Presidential Order. This allows the Court to address the convict’s concerns.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The following arguments were presented by the Respondents:
1. It is not deliberate; rather, the purported delay in delivering pertinent documentation for the President to examine while considering the Mercy Petition resulted from the lengthy and laborious procedure of obtaining information from State and Prison officials.
2. Examining these papers is a thorough procedure that requires careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages before a choice is made, which naturally takes time.
3. A variety of variables, including the kind of case, the extent of the investigation, and the quantity of mercy petitions filed on behalf of the accused, will affect how long the evaluation of the pleas for mercy takes. As a result, setting a deadline for this procedure is not practical.
4. Since Article 72 does not provide a deadline for processing Mercy Petitions, it is not feasible to enforce one.
5. No statutory provision or other authority may change, modify, or interfere with the discretionary power granted by Article 72.
6. The Respondents contend that a person serving a death sentence does not always have the right to ask for a commutation of their sentence, citing the precedent set by D Shetty v. International Airport Authority.
7. The death penalty is applied in accordance with the law, subject to review and appeal. Therefore, especially in situations involving severe crimes, a delay in execution should not be a reason to commute the sentence.
8. Additionally, the Respondents contend that solely basing the commutation of a death sentence on the grounds of delay would be contrary to the interests of the victim.
Judgement:
A three-judge Supreme Court bench’s decision in the case of Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr v. Union of India on January 21, 2014, signalled a dramatic shift in India’s body of precedent regarding the death punishment. The ruling stated that a significant mitigating circumstance for commutation might be an unreasonable delay in executing the death sentence. In a perceptive analysis, the Court stressed that a twelve-year delays in evaluating a mercy petition justified the commute of a death sentence to life in prison in the absence of legitimate, tenable, and acceptable justifications for the delay.
The concept that excessive, unjustified, and unwarranted delays in carrying out a death sentence amount to torture and violate Article 21 of the Constitution was fundamental to the court’s argument. Often called the “heart and soul of basic rights,” Article 21 states that no one may be deprived of their life or personal freedom until a legally mandated procedure has been followed. This foundational principle emphasises how vital life and individual freedom are to any civilised community.
The court emphasised the intrinsic right to life guaranteed by Article 21 by quoting P. Sathasivam, the Chief Justice of India at the time. It was decided that the two most important aspects of the political and social order were the right to life and the right to personal liberty. The court underlined that Article 21 covers the stage of a sentence’s execution in addition to its announcement. The court held that such delays might be considered a breach of the accused’s rights and have a degrading effect on them.
In Shatrughan Chauhan’s case, the court recognised that delays beyond of the convicts’ control qualified as grounds for commuting the death penalty. The court argued that the pain and suffering brought on by the delay qualify as torture, which is why the death sentence was commuted to life in prison. In addition to upholding the accused’s rights, this ruling complied with international standards, notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India has ratified.
The court went into further detail about the supervening circumstance of insanity. It stated that murdering a mad person who cannot grasp the nature of their acts and cannot defend themselves would be a clear breach of their rights. The court followed international and domestic legal standards by commuting the death sentences of two convicts to life imprisonment in light of their chronic psychotic illness. This sets a commendable example for other nations to ensure that the execution of sentences is in line with constitutional mandates.
The Shatrughan Chauhan case brought to light the Supreme Court’s crucial function as a benchmark for comprehending the federal structure of the Constitution. By recognising excessive and unjustifiable delays as crucial mitigating circumstances and commuting death sentences, the court created a system of checks and balances and made it clear that the Executive must be held responsible for its acts.
Analysis and Conclusion:
It is noteworthy that the Shatrughan Chauhan case established rules to safeguard death row inmates’ rights to life and personal freedom under Article 21 of the Constitution. With the goal of promoting a more equitable and compassionate criminal justice system, these recommendations attempted to rectify differences in the application of current legislation for protecting the rights of death row inmates. In the case of Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr v. Union of India, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court rendered a historic decision on January 21, 2014. This case addressed the crucial topic of the death sentence, with a focus on the consequences of unjustified delays in the processing of requests for mercy.
The death sentences of all 15 defendants were reduced to life in prison by the Supreme Court in a landmark ruling. This decision’s fundamental tenet was the acknowledgment that excessive, unjustified, and untimely delays in processing requests for compassion may be grounds for commutation. The Court stated that these delays alone are grounds for a defendant to request that their death sentence be commuted.
The Supreme Court emphasised that the President’s delaying his rejection of a mercy petition was tantamount to torture. This viewpoint was based on the knowledge that a prisoner’s protracted uncertainty and expectation of receiving the death penalty dehumanises them and violates their fundamental rights, especially those protected by Article 21 of the Constitution.
Often considered the cornerstone of fundamental rights, Article 21 states that no one may be deprived of their life or personal freedom until a legally mandated procedure has been followed. The right to life is a fundamental and inalienable component of a civilised society, and the Supreme Court stressed in its ruling that any infringement on this right—including protracted delays that result in mental suffering—violates fundamental constitutional norms.
Although acknowledging the detrimental effects of excessive delays, the Supreme Court declined to establish a precise threshold of years beyond which such delays might be considered torture. Rather, the Court concentrated on the more general idea that the carrying out of a sentence—especially one as harsh as the death penalty—must be consistent with the mandate of the constitution. This method gave room for flexibility in evaluating each case according to its merits, taking into consideration the particulars and the causes of any delays.
The absence of a strict deadline for determining what qualifies as an unreasonable delay illustrates a sophisticated comprehension of the nuances inherent in every situation. It admits that causes leading to delay might vary, and fairness necessitates a case-by-case review. The Supreme Court underlined the necessity for a comprehensive and contextual investigation in determining whether a delay has reached the point of constituting torture by rejecting a set threshold.
The Shatrughan Chauhan case, in its whole, demonstrated the judiciary’s dedication to preserving the values of justice, equity, and the defence of basic rights. It confirmed that the humane treatment of people in the criminal justice system cannot be separated from the execution process, especially when it comes to questions of life and death, and that both must be carried out in accordance with constitutional principles.
In addition to addressing the particular instance, the ruling established a standard for how mercy pleas will be handled going forward. It confirmed the notion that justice postponed is, in fact, justice denied by displaying a judicial commitment to averting needless mental distress and suffering for people awaiting a final verdict on their destiny.
