Death sentence caught in a row

Though the Constitution abhors subjecting an accused to the punishment which is not awarded by the court, it’s an irony that several accused persons sentenced to death have to undergo imprisonment of five to 10 years, waiting for the outcome of their mercy petitions filed before the president.

It has been held by the Supreme Court too that a person can’t be forced by the government to suffer a sentence that’s not handed over to him by a court of law. This has been held to explain the role of the executive which is liable to execute the orders passed by the top court.

But, in the absence of a time limit for disposing of a clemency plea under Article 72 of the Constitution, the executive leisurely examines the details of the case and takes its own time to put up the file before the president for his /her signatures.

Despite serious concerns expressed by a cross section of people over the undue delay in taking a call on the mercy petitions, the government has ruled out the possibility of   amending the law that could offer a fixed outer time limit for completing the exercise.

There is no denying the fact that capital sentence is a constitutionally valid form of sentence which is given only in the “rarest of rare”. The format of its execution by a well-oiled rope has also passed the judicial test. But the core issue remains, whether an accused should be given the extreme penalty in a case where judges differ; or to put it alternatively, if one judge disagrees, should the view of other two members of the bench be given finality. It is understandable that in cases of death where right to life is involved, judges shouldn’t have fractured opinions.

After all death is a question of finality, the judgment Day.
On other hand, high courts and the top court give top priority to the law suits that seek enforcement of fundamental rights or relate to violation of the basic rights. Needless to say, right to life and liberty figure top in the list of priorities of any constitutional court.

Strangely, the president of India, who is under oath to protect the interests of people and uphold the Constitution, has maintained silence on the need for expeditious disposal of mercy petitions.