The paper focuses on the origin and development of ‘Mercy Jurisprudence’ by the Supreme Court of India as far as the notion of commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment on grounds of exorbitant delay is concerned. The Supreme Court has of late started dealing ‘passionately’ with the delays caused in the execution of the death sentences and the delays in the disposal of the mercy petitions and has ruled in several cases that the uncalled for delays in the ultimate disposal of such matters need to be compensated by commuting the death penalty into life imprisonment. The doctrine evolved by the Apex Court has created ‘benefit’ in favor of persons convicted of terrorist activities, including the assassin(s) of Rajiv Gandhi. The paper ponders over the practical consequences or repercussions of the ‘active style’ of the judiciary in thus dealing with the cases which have already passed the test of the ‘rarest of rare’ category and are offenses definitely involving a high sense of moral obnoxiousness. The paper tries to visualize the feasibility, if any, in dealing ‘sympathetically’ with such cases and the impact of the doctrine on the sense of justice as vested in the common man. The paper also examines the impact of such ‘commutations’ upon the sense of retribution potently inherent in human beings, especially in cases involving extreme moral turpitude, cases of terrorism, etc. Further, the paper highlights the fact of inconsistencies in the decisions of the Apex Court even during a relatively short period of time which reflects poorly upon the justice delivery mechanism.

The Supreme Court of India has, once again, in its high spirit, ruled1 that death sentence of a condemned prisoner can be commuted to life imprisonment on the ground of delay on the part of the government in deciding the mercy plea. The court has held that prolonging execution of death sentence has a ‘dehumanizing effect’ on the condemned prisoners who have to face the ‘agony’ of waiting for years under the shadow of death during the pendency of their mercy plea. The review petition against the order of the Supreme Court has also been rejected, which makes it the operative law of the land that an inordinate delay in the disposal of the mercy pleas by the concerned Constitutional functionaries is to be treated as a potential ground for the commutation of death sentence into life imprisonment. The factual and the legal score on the issue clearly reflects that the ‘compensation’ in lieu of inaction or slow action on the part of the government shall be delivered in the form of grant of ‘life’ to a death convict, losing track of the ‘rarest of rare’ degree of crime which he was charged with as well as losing sight of the victim(s) who had suffered irreparable injuries due to the crime in question. Admittedly, the exorbitant delay ranging into years in processing a Mercy Petition2 by the President smells of something that is uncalled for, it happens to be an act which cannot be justified and defended by any stretch of argument. It falls under the gravest form of negligence in the performance of a constitutional duty of the highest degree, but the moot question at this juncture is whether, as a consequence of the inaction or delay on the part of the Constitutional functionary, the death convict deserves to be a ‘beneficiary’ and whether he ought to be thus ‘compensated’ for the lapse on the part of the Constitutional functionary, and if such a proposition is developed and launched, does it appeal to the sense of ‘justice’ to the masses. The pertinent question to be critically appreciated and cautiously answered is that as long as the death punishment is conspicuously present3 in the Indian statute books,4 as long as the apex court goes on to find no constitutional invalidity in punishment by death5 and as long as the same continues to be sparingly6 used by the courts, should the executive delays of some intensity be allowed to eclipse the strong and cogent reasons behind the retention of the punishment, despite all hues and cries to do away with the same. The fact needs to be taken an active cognizance of that despite having had a substantive degree of debate on the feasibility of retaining or not retaining death penalty on the statute books in India, since long, and in spite of a good volume of academic and intellectual discussion in favor of the abolition of death penalty, the public opinion has reflected itself, contrary to its theoretical opinion, in favor of retaining it post the tragic and gruesome incident of brutal rape and murder of a physiotherapy student in Delhi, infamously known as the ‘Nirbhaya Case’. As such because of implementation hassles in the execution of death sentence, after being awarded, confirmed and ratified, the natural response of the masses, generated by the brutality of the crime, should not be overshadowed in the name of ‘mercy jurisprudence’.

Law Review Journal, Commutation, Birth, Evolution of Mercy, Jurisprudence, Death Sentence, Life Imprisonment, Grounds of Delay, dehumanizing effect, Ground Realities.