Supreme Court gives directions to address delays in death penalty cases

1. Unjustified, unexplained and excessive delay in the execution of the death penalty shall entitle the convict to approach this Court under Article 32.

2. The Supreme Court will consider only the nature of the delay caused and the circumstances which arose after the judicial process finally upheld the conviction and will not have jurisdiction to reopen the conclusions reached by the Court while ultimately upholding the death sentence.

3. Keeping a convict in suspense while considering his pleas for pardon from the governor or president for an inordinately long period will certainly cause him agony. This creates unfavorable physical conditions and psychological stress for the convict.

4. The Supreme Court, in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 21 of the Constitution, must consider the effect of the inordinate delay in processing the pardon application by the most high constitutional authorities and cannot excuse the agonizing delay caused solely on the basis of the seriousness of the crime;

5. Article 21 of the Constitution does not stop at the pronouncement of the sentence but extends to the stage of execution of this sentence. Excessive delay in carrying out the death penalty has a dehumanizing effect on the accused.

6. Excessive and unexplained delay caused by circumstances beyond the control of the prisoners requires the commutation of a death sentence;

7. After the order of rejection of requests for mercy is communicated to a condemned person, the sword of Damocles cannot remain clinging to him for an excessively long time. This can be very taxing, both mentally and physically. Such excessive and unreasonable delay would violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. In such a case, the Court will be justified in commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment.

8. No absolute rule can be set regarding the duration of delays, which can be described as exorbitant.

9. The terms “undue” or “disproportionate” cannot be interpreted by applying mathematical rules. The courts, in such cases, deal with human issues and the effect of delay on a particular convict. Whether a delay is excessive depends on the facts of the case.

10. Once the convict has exhausted all remedies including filing of mercy petitions or after the sessions court is satisfied that the convict has made a conscious decision not to resort to remedies, the warrant of execution must be issued without delay. It is up to the court of first instance to initiate and conclude the procedure for issuing an execution warrant as quickly as possible. The trial court must give necessary priority in turn.