Delay In Execution Of Death Penalty
π What is the Issue?
Delay in the execution of a death sentence refers to the unreasonable lapse of time between the final confirmation of a death sentence by the courts and its actual execution (hanging). This delay can occur due to:
Mercy petitions to the President or Governor,
Repeated judicial reviews or curative petitions,
Bureaucratic inaction,
Mental illness or health deterioration of the convict,
Multiple co-accused and procedural complexities.
Such delays raise constitutional and human rights concerns, especially under Article 21 β Right to Life.
βοΈ Legal and Constitutional Concerns
| Concern | Legal Basis |
|---|---|
| Right to Life and Dignity | Article 21 β delays causing mental torture violate this right. |
| Protection from Cruel and Inhuman Punishment | Part of the jurisprudence under Article 21. |
| Judicial Review of Mercy Rejections | Supreme Court allows review if delay is excessive or decision is arbitrary. |
| Possibility of Commutation | Courts have commuted death sentences to life due to undue delay. |
π Key Case Laws on Delay in Execution of Death Penalty
Below are more than five landmark cases where Indian courts addressed this issue in detail.
1. T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (1983) 2 SCC 68
Facts: The convict remained on death row for over 8 years.
Held:
Supreme Court ruled that delay exceeding 2 years in execution is sufficient ground to commute death sentence to life imprisonment.
Observed that prolonged detention before execution causes agony, mental torture, violating Article 21.
Significance: One of the first cases to recognize delay as a ground for commutation.
2. Sher Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 344
Facts: Petitioners were on death row for more than 5 years.
Held:
Court refused to lay down a fixed time limit (like 2 years) for commuting death penalty.
Held that mere delay is not sufficient, unless accompanied by mental agony, trauma or cruelty.
Emphasized case-by-case examination.
Significance: Slightly diluted Vatheeswaran, stressing the need to assess psychological impact rather than mechanical timelines.
3. Jagdish v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2009) 9 SCC 495
Facts: The accused was convicted of rape and murder of a minor. He spent more than 5 years awaiting execution.
Held:
Court commuted the sentence to life imprisonment on grounds of inordinate delay.
Emphasized that every aspect of mental and emotional suffering caused by the delay must be evaluated.
Significance: Reinforced the idea that prolonged agony on death row can violate constitutional rights.
4. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1
Facts: This was a landmark case involving multiple death row prisoners who had faced extreme delays in disposal of mercy petitions.
Held:
Supreme Court held that undue, unexplained delay in execution is a valid ground for commutation.
Laid down guidelines for safeguarding the rights of death row convicts:
Right to receive notice before execution,
Right to legal aid,
Access to family and psychiatrist,
Reasonable time before execution.
Also emphasized mental illness as a bar to execution.
Significance: One of the most comprehensive rulings on procedural and substantive safeguards for death convicts.
5. Triveniben v. State of Gujarat (1989) 1 SCC 678
Facts: Concerned a batch of petitions where convicts were awaiting execution for several years.
Held:
Overruled Vatheeswaranβs β2-year rule.β
Stated that no fixed time limit can be set, but unreasonable delay can justify commutation.
Courts must evaluate circumstances of each case, including conduct of prisoner, reason for delay, and mental agony suffered.
Significance: A constitutional bench judgment that became the governing precedent in later death penalty cases.
6. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State (2013) 6 SCC 195
Facts: The petitioner was a convict in a 1993 bomb blast case. He claimed that 8-year delay in deciding his mercy petition was grounds for commutation.
Held:
Initially, the Supreme Court rejected the plea, saying that terror convicts could not claim delay as a ground for commutation.
However, this view was overruled in the 2014 Shatrughan Chauhan case, where the Court clarified that even convicts in terrorism cases are entitled to constitutional protection against inhuman punishment.
Significance: Showed the evolution of judicial thinking towards more humane treatment of death row prisoners.
π Common Reasons for Delay in Execution
Filing of mercy petitions under Articles 72 and 161,
Delays in forwarding mercy petitions from state to centre,
Lack of clarity on execution protocols,
Judicial interventions and curative petitions,
Administrative lethargy or political considerations,
Multiple co-accused at different procedural stages.
π§ Psychological and Human Rights Dimensions
Death row syndrome: A condition where long periods of isolation and anticipation of death result in psychological trauma.
UN Human Rights Committee has held that prolonged death row detention is cruel and degrading.
π§Ύ Procedural Safeguards Recognized by Courts
From Shatrughan Chauhan, the Court laid down that:
No execution should take place before 14 days of rejection of mercy petition.
Mental health of prisoner must be evaluated before execution.
Legal aid must be provided to the death row convict till the end.
Family should be informed and allowed to meet the convict before hanging.
β Conclusion
Indian courts have gradually evolved to recognize that delays in executing death sentences can amount to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, violating Article 21 of the Constitution. While not all delays justify commutation, prolonged, unjustified, and torturous delays can lead to the conversion of the death sentence into life imprisonment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments