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