Case Note & Summary
The present writ petition was filed by two sisters, Renuka Shinde and Seema Gavit, who were convicted of multiple child kidnappings and murders and sentenced to death. They sought commutation of their death sentences to life imprisonment on the ground that the inordinate delay in deciding their mercy petitions under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India violated their fundamental rights under Article 21. The Petitioners were tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, on 28 June 2001, for kidnapping thirteen children, attempting to kidnap one more, and murdering nine of them between June 1990 and October 1996. The High Court confirmed the convictions and death sentences on 8 September 2004, and the Supreme Court dismissed their appeal and confirmed the death sentence on 31 August 2006. Subsequently, the Petitioners filed mercy petitions before the Governor of Maharashtra under Article 161 and before the President of India under Article 72. The Governor rejected the petition on 17 August 2013, and the President rejected it on 30 July 2014. The time elapsed between the Supreme Court's confirmation and the final rejection of the mercy petitions was seven years, ten months, and fifteen days. The Petitioners contended that this extensive delay was unreasonable and unexplained, causing prolonged mental anguish and dehumanizing treatment, thereby violating their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. They argued that the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment. The respondents did not provide any justification for the delay. The Court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, which held that unreasonable, unexplained, and exorbitant delay in disposal of mercy petitions violates Article 21 and that courts can step in to commute the death sentence without interfering with the clemency power. The Court noted that the procedure prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs for handling mercy petitions mandates timely processing. Finding that the delay of over seven years was inordinate and that no justification was offered, the Division Bench held that the Petitioners' fundamental right under Article 21 was violated. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition and commuted the death sentences of both Petitioners to imprisonment for life. The judgment thus reaffirms that the executive must exercise clemency powers with reasonable expedition to avoid constitutional infirmity.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Mercy Petition Delay - Violation of Article 21 - Constitution of India - Articles 21, 72, 161 - The Petitioners, death convicts, faced a delay of seven years, ten months and fifteen days in the disposal of their mercy petitions. The Court held that unreasonable and unexplained delay in deciding mercy petitions violates the fundamental right to life under Article 21, and such delay warrants commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment following the principles in Shatrughan Chauhan. Held, the delay was inordinate and no justification was provided; therefore, the death sentences are commuted to life imprisonment (Paras 2, 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether inordinate delay of seven years, ten months and fifteen days in disposal of mercy petitions under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India violates the Petitioners' fundamental right under Article 21, warranting commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and commuted the death sentences of both Petitioners to imprisonment for life, holding that the delay of seven years, ten months and fifteen days in deciding the mercy petitions was unreasonable and violated Article 21 of the Constitution, following the principles laid down in Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- unreasonable delay in deciding mercy petition violates fundamental right under Article 21
- death sentence commutable to life imprisonment if delay is inordinate
- executive must decide mercy petitions with reasonable expedition
- reliance on Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India
- delay of seven years ten months fifteen days is inordinate and unexplained
