• The Supreme Court put on hold its order directing President Droupadi Murmu’s secretary to place before her the mercy petition of death row convict Balwant Singh Rajoana, convicted in the 1995 assassination case of then Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh, for consideration.

• After the order was passed in the morning, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged that it should not be given effect as there are “sensitivities” involved in the issue and that it be heard later. Mehta told the bench that the file is with the Home Ministry and not the President.

• Earlier in the day, a bench of Justices requested the President to consider the plea within two weeks.

• The bench agreed to the SG’s request and posted the matter for hearing next week.

What is the case about?

• Balwant Singh Rajoana, a former Punjab Police constable, was convicted and sentenced to death in 2007 for his role in the 1995 assassination of then Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh. 

• The attack, a suicide bombing outside the Punjab Civil Secretariat in Chandigarh, resulted in the deaths of Beant Singh and 16 others. Rajoana was identified as the backup bomber in the attack.

• In March 2012, Rajoana was scheduled for execution; however, his sentence was stayed following a mercy plea filed by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC). 

• Since then, the plea has remained pending, sparking debates over delays in deciding mercy petitions.

• Rajoana has been seeking the commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment, citing the prolonged delay as grounds for relief under the Supreme Court’s precedents. 

• His petition argues that extended delays in processing mercy pleas violate basic human rights, causing undue mental and physical stress on death row convicts.

• Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Rajoana, emphasized that co-accused in the case had received commuted sentences and were released. He questioned the justification for the delay in Rajoana’s case.

Clemency Powers in India

• Under Articles 72 and 161, the President and the Governor of a state have concurrent powers to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, remissions, or commutations of sentences in cases involving capital punishment. 

• While the President’s powers extend to cases under Union jurisdiction, the Governor’s authority is limited to state matters.

• However, these powers are not absolute. Article 74 mandates the President to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The Supreme Court affirmed this in the landmark Maru Ram vs Union of India (1980) case, emphasizing that the President cannot exercise personal discretion when deciding on mercy petitions.

The Process of Mercy Petition Evaluation

• Once a death sentence is confirmed by the judiciary, anyone — irrespective of nationality — can file a mercy petition with the state’s Home Department. 

The petition moves as follows:

• Governor’s Office: The Governor reviews the petition and forwards it with recommendations to the Union’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) if declined.

• President’s Office: The MHA evaluates the petition and advises the President, who may accept or return it for reconsideration. If the Council reiterates its recommendation, the President is bound to accept it.

Judicial Review of Clemency Powers

Although the Constitution grants clemency powers significant leeway, the Supreme Court has allowed judicial review to ensure these powers are not misused. 

Key rulings include:

• Kehar Singh vs Union of India (1988): Highlighted that clemency powers operate independently of judicial verdicts. However, procedural fairness and constitutional compliance are subject to judicial scrutiny.

• Epuru Sudhakar vs Andhra Pradesh (2006): Clarified grounds for challenging a clemency decision, such as mala fide intent, extraneous considerations, or arbitrariness.

• Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India (2014): Declared that undue delays in deciding mercy petitions violate the right to life under Article 21 and can warrant commutation of death sentences.

Challenges with Executive Procrastination

• One contentious issue is the indefinite delay in deciding mercy petitions.  The Supreme Court has consistently criticized this practice, labeling it as a form of psychological torture for death row inmates. 

• The Shatrughan Chauhan case underscored that such delays are unconstitutional and necessitate commutation.

(The author is a trainer for Civil Services aspirants.)