Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India · 21 January 2014 · 3 judges

Undue, unexplained and inordinate executive delay in deciding mercy petitions, and insanity, are supervening circumstances on which death sentences may be commuted under Article 32, in all cases including TADA; fifteen death sentences were commuted and guidelines issued.

Facts

Writ petitions under Article 32 were filed by death row convicts, by their family members and by the People's Union for Democratic Rights after the Governors and the President rejected their mercy petitions. They sought a declaration that executing the death sentences after the rejection was unconstitutional, and commutation to life imprisonment. They relied on supervening circumstances: delay in deciding the mercy petitions (in several cases between about 6 and 12 years), insanity or mental illness, solitary confinement, reliance by the trial or High Court on decisions later doubted or held per incuriam, and lapses in the prescribed procedure. The Union of India argued that no time limit applies to the President under Article 72 and, relying on Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, that delay cannot help persons convicted under TADA. PUDR also sought guidelines on handling mercy petitions and protecting death row prisoners.

Questions before the Court

Can the execution of a death sentence, after rejection of a mercy petition under Article 72 or 161, violate Article 21 because of supervening circumstances such as delay or insanity?
Is undue delay in disposing of mercy petitions a ground for commutation in cases under TADA and similar statutes, and is Devender Pal Singh Bhullar good law?
Should the Court decide commutation itself or remit the matter to the executive?
What guidelines should govern mercy petitions and the treatment of death row convicts?

What the Court held

The power under Articles 72 and 161 is a constitutional obligation, not a mere prerogative, and must be exercised within reasonable time. The right to seek mercy is a constitutional right. Article 21 inheres in a prisoner till his last breath, so supervening circumstances after the final verdict may be considered.
Undue, unexplained and inordinate executive delay in disposing of a mercy petition is a ground on which this Court may commute a death sentence under Article 32, if the delay was not caused by the accused. The gravity of the crime is not relevant at this stage, and the Court grants relief itself instead of remanding.
The delay ground applies to all cases, including offences under TADA. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, which excluded TADA cases as a class, is per incuriam. Shetty, J.'s observations in para 76 of Triveniben are a minority view; the majority held that no fixed period of delay makes a death sentence inexecutable.
Insanity or mental illness of the convict is a supervening circumstance warranting commutation. Solitary confinement before final rejection of mercy is contrary to Sunil Batra, but the Court did not interfere on that ground here, and gave no importance to the argument that sentencing courts relied on decisions later doubted.
On the facts, the death sentences of fifteen convicts were commuted to imprisonment for life, mainly for unexplained delay, and all the writ petitions were allowed.
Guidelines were issued: legal aid at all stages, written communication of rejection to the convict and family, a copy of the rejection, at least 14 days between that communication and execution, mental health evaluation, supply of documents within a week, a final family meeting, and a compulsory post mortem.

Why it matters

The judgment holds that unexplained executive delay in deciding mercy petitions and the convict's insanity are grounds for commutation, declares Devender Pal Singh Bhullar per incuriam so that terrorism cases are not excluded as a class, and reads Triveniben's majority view as binding. It also lays down guidelines on the procedure for mercy petitions and the treatment of death row prisoners up to execution.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“Taking guidance from the above principles and in the light of the ratio enunciated in Triveniben (supra), we are of the view that unexplained delay is one of the grounds for commutation of sentence of death into life imprisonment and the said supervening circumstance is applicable to all types of cases including the offences under TADA.”

P. Sathasivam, CJIPage 58 of the judgment

“In the light of the same, we are of the view that the ratio laid down in Devender Pal Singh Bhullar (supra) is per incuriam. There is no dispute that in the same decision this Court has accepted the ratio enunciated in Triveniben (supra) (Constitution Bench) and also noted some other judgments following the ratio laid down in those cases that unexplained long delay may be one of the grounds for commutation of sentence of death into life imprisonment. There is no good reason to disqualify all TADA cases as a class from relief on account of delay in execution of death sentence. Each case requires consideration on its own facts.”

P. Sathasivam, CJIPage 54 of the judgment

“The above materials, particularly, the directions of the United Nations International Conventions, of which India is a party, clearly show that insanity/mental illness/schizophrenia is a crucial supervening circumstance, which should be considered by this Court in deciding whether in the facts and circumstances of the case death sentence could be commuted to life imprisonment.”

P. Sathasivam, CJIPage 64 of the judgment

“Right to seek for mercy under Article 72/161 of the Constitution is a constitutional right and not at the discretion or whims of the executive. Every Constitutional duty must be fulfilled with due care and diligence; otherwise judicial interference is the command of the Constitution for upholding its values.”

P. Sathasivam, CJIPage 155 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

Follows Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983)“The reasons given by this Court for striking down this aforesaid section will come in aid for this case.” (page 55)
Follows Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)“This Court, in Sunil Batra (supra), held that solitary or single cell confinement prior to rejection of the mercy petition by the President is unconstitutional.” (page 143)
Follows Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)“Considerations such as the gravity of the crime, extraordinary cruelty involved therein or some horrible consequences for society caused by the offence are not relevant after the Constitution Bench ruled in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab” (page 47)

Case and bench

Parties: Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India
Case: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 55 of 2013, with Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 34, 56, 136, 139, 141, 132, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192 and 193 of 2013
Decided: 21 January 2014
Bench: P. Sathasivam, CJI, Ranjan Gogoi, J., Shiva Kirti Singh, J.
Opinions: Unanimous. The judgment was delivered by P. Sathasivam, CJI and signed by Ranjan Gogoi, J. and Shiva Kirti Singh, J.

Questions on this case

3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.