GS 2 · 2014Indian Polity12 Marks
Q16.Instances of the President's delay in commuting death sentences has come under public debate as denial of justice. Should there be a time specified for the President to accept/reject such petitions? Analyse
Directive: Analyse12 marks
Introduction
The President's power under Article 72 to commute death sentences is a crucial safeguard. However, inordinate delays in deciding mercy petitions have sparked debate, raising concerns about denial of justice and violation of fundamental rights.
Constitutional Basis and Purpose
Article 72: President can grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment, or suspend, remit, or commute sentences.
Arguments for a Time Limit
- Ensures human rights and prevents arbitrary delays.
- Upholds rule of law and due process.
- Reduces mental agony for convicts, aligning with Article 21.
Arguments Against a Strict Time Limit
- Requires thorough examination of complex legal and factual aspects.
- Involves political sensitivities and wider implications.
- Preserves executive discretion, crucial for nuanced decisions.
Judicial Pronouncements
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014): SC held inordinate, unexplained delays in mercy petitions can commute death sentences to life imprisonment.
Conclusion
While a rigid time limit might be impractical, procedural guidelines and transparency are essential. This ensures timely decisions, balances executive discretion with human rights, and prevents justice denial.
148 words · target ~150