No Mercy: Pranab Mukherjee rejected 30 mercy petitions as President

Dev Goswami 

New Delhi July 18, 2017 

Next Tuesday, when Pranab Mukherjee demits the office of the President of India, he will leave behind an in-tray empty of any mercy petitions requesting him to commute a death sentence to life. Over the five years of his presidency, Mukherjee has disposed of 34 mercy pleas (35, if you consider the case of 1993 Mumbai serial blasts financier Yakub Memon who, unsuccessfully, appealed for the presidential pardon twice).

Mukherjee has rejected 30 mercy petitions (31, again, if you include Memon's follow-up plea), and has given fresh leases on lives in four cases. His record of rejecting mercy petitions is unparalleled among his immediate predecessors and, in the history of the Indian republic, is second only to President R Venkatraman, who rejected 45 mercy pleas.* When Mukherjee's successor, who trends suggest will likely be Dalit leader and Bharatiya Janata Party member Ram Nath Kovind, takes office, they will have no pending mercy pleas to act upon, an event that hasn't happened in three presidencies. When Pranab Mukherjee became president on July 25, 2012, he inherited at least 10 pending pleas for mercy, including one from President Kocheril Raman Narayanan's term (1997-2002). In fact, President KR Narayanan and his successor President Abdul Kalam (2002-2007) hold the distinction of sitting on mercy petitions, or what the Law Commission said in a 2015 report, putting the "brakes on the disposal of mercy petitions."

President Pranab Mukharjee

President Narayanan did not act upon a single mercy petition sent to him, while President Kalam disposed of a grand total of two pleas - commuting one, rejecting the other. The ten years of indecision under Narayanan and Kalam were in stark contrast to the term of Pratibha Patil (2007-2012), India's first female president who quickly became known for being one of India's most lenient head of state. Patil's term saw 34 commutations and five rejections. Only India's first two presidents (Rajendra Prasad with 180 commutations and Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan with 57) accepted more mercy petitions than she did.

President Pranab Mukharjee

RUBBER STAMP?

Under the Indian constitution, the president acts on the advice of the executive, i.e. the prime minister and his cabinet. And so, the argument has often been made that a president's decision - on mercy petitions or otherwise - should be seen in context of the political dispensation in power. However, the 20 years of presidents Mukherjee, Patil, Kalam and Narayanan have been divided almost equally between governments led by the Congress (2004-2014) and the BJP (1998-2004; 2014-now). Furthermore, the constitution does not set a time frame in which the president must act upon a mercy plea, though the Supreme Court has indirectly set some restrictions by ruling that an inordinate delay in settling a mercy petition could be grounds for commuting a death sentence altogether.

President Pratibha Patil

This allows presidents to express dissent by refusing to act on a mercy petition, a trend seen during the Narayanan and Kalam years. There have also been precedents, though rare, of presidents going against government advice - just this year, President Mukherjee commuted to life the death sentences of four men, going against the Centre's recommendation. An analysis of denials (or commutations) of mercy pleas suggests that that the person occupying the president's chair does matter, even though the Rashtrapati Bhavan has sought to argue otherwise in the past, for example, in 2012, when it released a statement on behalf of Pratibha Patil to convey essentially that the president acts on behalf of the government and not out of her own will. The Law Commission in its 2015 report too noted the influence a president has on deciding mercy petitions, saying, "A perusal of the chart of mercy petitions disposed by Presidents suggests that a death-row convict's fate in matters of life and death may not only depend on the ideology and views of the government of the day but also on the personal views and belief systems of the President."

President Kalam acted upon just two mercy petitions, rejecting one, accepting the other

HOW PRESIDENTS HAVE ACTED ON MERCY PLEAS

Based on data collated by the Law Commission, here's how India's presidents have dealt with mercy petitions:

• Rajendra Prasad accepted 180 mercy pleas and rejected just one.
• Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan allowed 57 mercy petitions while rejecting none.
• Zakir Hussain did not send a single man to the gallow, accepting 22 mercy pleas.
• VV Giri too did not reject a mercy petition, and accepted three pleas.
• Fakrudhin Ali Ahmed and N Sanjeeva Reddy did not deal with any mercy petitions in their tenures.
• Zail Singh rejected 30 mercy petitions, allowing just two.
• R Venkatraman holds the record of rejecting the highest number of mercy pleas - 45. He allowed five petitions.
• SD Sharma did not hand out a single commutation, rejecting 18 pleas for mercy.
• KR Narayanan kept all mercy petitions pending.
• APJ Kalam ruled on just two pleas, rejecting one and accepting the other.
• Pratibha Patil commuted 34 mercy petitions and rejected five.
• Pranab Mukherjee rejected 30 mercy petitions and allowed four.

HOW MERCY PETITIONS ARE DECIDED

Once the Supreme Court gives in its final ruling in a death penalty case, a convict on the death row can approach the president directly, via prison officials, via the Union Home Ministry or via the governor of the state where he/she is incarcerated. The president then seeks the opinion of the Union cabinet, which is provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The president might, in some cases, send the MHA's recommendation back for further clarifications. The Home Ministry may also recall its recommendation in order to provide a fresh opinion. Once the MHA submits a recommendation, the President will then accordingly decide upon a mercy petition. However, there is no set time frame within which a President must act.

President K.P. Narayan

* The numbers in this article are based on data collated by the Law Commission in its 2015 report. However, in a hallmark of Indian bureaucratic record keeping, exact figures on the mercy petitions rejected or allowed by India's first few presidents aren't easily available. Even the Law Commission in its report noted that the figures it was able to collate were based on empirical verification from the archives which may not be complete.

(Graphics: Newsflicks; Chart: Ekta Handa)

Source: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/president-pranab-mukherjee-mercy-petitions-1025001-2017-07-18 (Accessed 23 December 2018)

Repeated Mercy Pleas Frustrate Legal Principle; Centre to SC

Published: 22nd July 2015 09:27 PM | Last Updated: 22nd July 2015 10:11 PM

Solicitor General (SG) Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Centre, said, "Repeated filing of mercy pleas frustrate the principle of finality".

By PTI

NEW DELHI: Repeated mercy pleas before the President and the Governor by convicts seeking remission or commutation of their sentences violate the principle of finality, the Centre today told the Supreme Court. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu, hearing Centre's plea opposing Tamil Nadu's decision to remit the life sentences and set free seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, also posed various queries on powers of Union and the state in granting remission. Solicitor General (SG) Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Centre, said, "Repeated filing of mercy pleas frustrate the principle of finality". During the day-long hearing, the bench, also comprising Justices F M I Kalifulla, Pinaki Chandra Ghosh, Abhay Manohar Sapre and U U Lalit, asked as to whether a convict can approach the Governor with his mercy plea even after its rejection by the President. It sought the SG's response on the issue, wondering whether the President's auhority would be undermined, if the Governor allows a mercy plea subsequent to its rejection by the former.

Solicitor General (SG) Ranjit Kumar (file photo)

The bench, which referred to the case of Yakub Memon without naming him, asked the SG to take instruction as to whether any procedure is in place to deal with the mercy pleas or there was need to make a fresh law. The Solicitor General, on his part, said the Governor can decide the mercy plea of death row convicts even it had been by the President provided there is a "change in circumstances". He, however, added that the convict cannot be granted remission under the CrPC after constitutional authorities like the President and the Governor have rejected the mercy plea. "Do you mean to say that power once exercised stands exhausted?" the bench asked, adding, "why can't the state government can take a decision?"

The issue is as to whether the re-consideration of mercy pleas by the executive defies the legislative and constitutional scheme, the SG said. The Solicitor General also said the states cannot decide the mercy pleas of persons convicted under central laws like Foreigners Act and the Passport Act in cases probed and prosecuted by a central agency like the CBI. "Here is the dichotomy. If the conviction is under the state laws (like MCOCA), then the Governor has the power to commute the death penalty or any other penalty," he said. During the hearing, the bench referred to the new penal laws on rape and asked the SG as to why it specifies that the life term would mean "remainder of life of convict".

Referring to various apex court decisions, the SG said it had been done keeping in mind the growing number of offences against women and the fact that often states remit sentences of convicts using "legally unsound principles". The arguments remained inconclusive and the Solicitor General would resume his submissions tomorrow. Earlier, the Centre had asserted that the killers of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi did nor deserve any mercy as the assassination was the result of a conspiracy involving foreign nationals. "Our former Prime Minister was killed by these people. There was a conspiracy to kill him in which foreign nationals were also involved. What mercy is to be seen or shown? This is to be looked by you (apex court). "Their mercy plea was rejected by the President and also by the Governor (of Tamil Nadu). So what mercy is being argued?" the Solicitor General had said.

Among seven convicts, V Sriharan alias Murugan, Santhan, Robert Pious and Jaya Kumar were Sri Lankan nationals while female convict Nalini, Ravichandran and Arivu are Indians. The bench is hearing the maintainability of the Centre's petition opposing Tamil Nadu government's decision to remit the life sentences and release seven convicts in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. The issue of mercy was raised by senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, who while appearing for Murugan traced the history of judicial proceedings. Earlier, the court, on the plea of the erstwhile UPA government, had stayed Tamil Nadu's government's decision. It had framed seven questions to be decided by a Constitution bench on the scope of the executive's power of remission.

Earlier, senior advocate Ram Jethmalani and Tamil Nadu government's senior counsel Rakesh Dwivedi had questioned the maintainability of the Centre's petition, saying Article 32 cannot be invoked by the Centre as it did not concern any violation of the fundamental rights. The apex court had on February 20 last year stayed the state government's decision to release three convicts Murugan, Santhan and Arivu whose death sentence was commuted to life term by it two days before. It had later also stayed the release of four other convicts Nalini, Robert Pious, Jayakumar and Ravichandran, saying there were procedural lapses on the part of the state government. Santhan, Murugan and Arivu are currently lodged in the Central Prison, Vellore. The other four are also undergoing life sentence for their role in Gandhi's assassination on May 21, 1991 in Sriperumbudur.

"The issue of such a nature has been raised for the first time in this Court, which has wide ramification in determining the scope of application of power of remission by the executives, both the Centre and the State. "Accordingly, we refer this matter to the Constitution Bench to decide the issue pertaining to whether once power of remission under Article 72(by the President) or 161 (by Governor)or by this Court exercising Constitutional power under Article 32 is exercised, is there any scope for further consideration for remission by the executive," the apex court had said while referring the matter to the Constitution bench. It had said the Constitution bench would decide whether the sentence of a prisoner, whose death penalty has been commuted to life, can be remitted by the government.

Such a bench would also decide whether life imprisonment meant jail term for rest of the life or a convict has a right to claim remission, it had said. Another issue for the Constitution bench to decide would be whether a special category of sentence may be made for cases where death penalty might be substituted by imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term in excess of 14 years and to put that category beyond application of remission. It will also decide whether the Union of India or the State has primacy over the subject matter enlisted in concurrent list of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution for exercise of power of remission.

Source: http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2015/jul/22/Repeated-Mercy-Pleas-Frustrate-Legal-Principle-Centre-to-SC-789980.html (Accessed on 18 December 2018)

President rejects mercy plea of rapist-killer of 3-year-old

Himanshi Dhawan,TNN | Aug 6, 2014, 04.43 AM IST NEW DELHI: President PranabMukherjee has rejected the mercy petition of death row convict RajendraPralhadraoWasnik who was found guilty of raping and murdering a three-year-old child. Mukherjee, acting on the advice of the home ministry, rejected the petition on July 31. The President has so far rejected mercy petitions in 22 cases involving 29 death row convicts in his two-year tenure. By rejection Wasnik's mercy petition, he has signed off on the death penalty on five cases related to six convicts in July itself. Mukherjee has commuted just one death sentence and has no more mercy petitions pending with his office. This is in sharp contrast to predecessors like K R Narayanan who did not take up any cases, A P J Abdul Kalam who rejected one plea and Pratibha Patil who rejected mercy petitions in three cases commuting the sentence of 34 convicts. Despite the record number of rejections only two hangings have taken place with the convicts challenging the Presidential order in court. The trend for the quick disposal of mercy petitions was set with Mumbai 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab's execution in November 2012 which was the first hanging after 2004 and marked a sharp departure in India's policy towards death penalty. President Kalam had sent rapist-killer Dhananjoy Chatterjee to the gallows in 2004. Mukherjee has since rejected the mercy petitions Saibanna Ningappa Natikar on January 4 this year before sentencing death penalty for Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru on February 3. He has commuted the death sentence for Atbir who was found guilty for murder of three relatives over a property dispute on November 15, 2012. In the last two years Mukherjee has rejected the mercy petitions of Veerappan aides Simon, Gnanaprakash, Madaiah and Bilavandran who killed 22 people by blasting a land mine, mass murderers including Suresh and Ramji, Gurmeet Singh and Jafar Ali. In just the last month, he has rejected the mercy petitions of Holiram Bordoloi and Jagdish (accused of multiple murders), Nithari killings convict Surender Koli, Renukabai and Seema (accused of kidnapping and murdering 9 children) and Wasnik. A Presidential pardon arises from article 72 of the Constitution that empowers the President to pardon, grant reprieve or suspend, remit, commute sentence of person convicted of any offence. The President is guided by home minister and the council of ministers. According to data accessed through RTI application filed by activist S C Agrawal, Shankar Dayal Sharma rejected all 14 petitions before him while President K R Narayanan received 10 petitions and did not dispose any. Kalam inherited these petitions with another 16 added in his term. He disposed of only two — rejecting the mercy petition of Dhananjoy Chatterjee, accused of raping and murdering a teenager and commuting the death sentence Kheraj Ram. Patil granted clemency to 34 convicts in her tenure while rejecting 3 pleas. These included the politically sensitive case of former PM Rajiv Gandhi's assassins, Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan. She also rejected the mercy petition of Devinder Singh Bhullar, found guilty of killing 9 bystanders in a 1993 car bombing intended to kill Maninderjeet Singh Bitta and Mahendra Nath Das, accused of murder. Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/President-rejects-mercy-plea-of-rapist-killer-of-3-year-old/articleshow/39718200.cms [last accessed 06.02.2015]

Are we carving out separate jurisdiction for death row prisoners, SC asks

Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN Aug 9, 2013, 02.56AM IST

NEW DELHI: In a midnight order, the Supreme Court stopped Jabalpur jail authorities hours before they were to take Maganlal to the gallows on Thursday to execute the capital punishment given to him for hacking to death his five daughters, the eldest of whom was just six years, in Madhya Pradesh's Sehore district.

NGO 'People's Union for Democratic Rights' through senior advocate Colin Gonsalves swung into action late on Wednesday evening after the TOI website reported Maganlal's imminent execution in Jabalpur central jail and moved Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam, who held court at his residence close to midnight and ordered the authorities to put the scheduled execution on hold till Thursday.
On Thursday, sitting with Justice Ranjana Desai, Justice Sathasivam extended the stay on Maganlal's execution till further orders after Gonsalves doubted whether authorities had intimated the convict's family about the President's July 22 decision to reject his mercy plea.

Though the apex court has always acted in favour of right to life, a recent spate of petitions filed at the eleventh hour seeking stay of execution after rejection of mercy petitions by the President forced the bench of Justices Sathasivam and Desai to wonder aloud, "Are we creating a separate post-mercy rejection jurisdiction?"

There was a reason for the CJI to express his nuanced thoughts, because death warrants are issued against a condemned prisoner only after he goes through all tiers of judicial remedy - appeal in the high court, then in Supreme Court and following it up with review and curative petitions - to challenge the death sentence imposed on him by the trial court which awards capital sentence after finding the heinous crime fitting into the SC-devised 'rarest of rare' category.

In a similar late evening sitting on April 6 at the residence of Justice Sathasivam, he along with Justice MY Eqbal had stayed the execution of eight persons whose mercy pleas had been rejected. There too, PUDR was the public interest petitioner for the death row prisoners.

During the April 6 hearing, the bench of Justices Sathasivam and Eqbal had said it was entertaining the petition to ascertain whether proper communication had been sent to the relatives of these condemned prisoners whose mercy pleas had been rejected.

"It should not happen as it happened in the Jammu and Kashmir case (Afzal Guru's hanging). The intimation of the execution reached the relatives of the person (Afzal) after his hanging. That is bad. The relatives lost an opportunity to meet the condemned prisoner for one last time before his execution," the bench had said.

Gonsalves picked up the thread from the April 6 hearing and on Thursday argued before the bench of Justices Sathasivam and Desai that "no communication appears to have been sent to the family of Maganlal after the rejection of his mercy plea". The court allowed PUDR's lawyers - Rishabha Sancheti, Yug Mohit Chaudhry and Puja Sharma - to meet the family of the condemned prisoner and ascertain facts.

A trial court had on February 3, 2011, found Maganlal guilty of beheading his daughters Jamuna (1), Phool Kanwar (2), Aarti (4), Savita (5) and Leela (6) with an axe following a dispute over property with his two wives on June 11, 2010. The high court upheld the trial court decision seven months later and the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal on January 9 last year. 

Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-09/india/41236594_1_mercy-petitions-mercy-plea-execution [accessed 12th August 2013]

Larger bench of SC to hear pleas of death row convicts

Press Trust of India | Posted on Jul 26, 2013 at 06:26pm IST

New Delhi: A larger bench of the Supreme Court will hear from October 22 a batch of petitions seeking commutation of their death sentence into life imprisonment on account of delay in carrying out the execution following the dismissal of their mercy petitions by the President.
"Death sentence matters will be taken up immediately after the Dussehra holidays from October 22," a bench, comprising Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justice Ranjan Gogoi, said.
Before taking over as the CJI, Justice Sathasivam had said that there was a need for "authoritative pronouncements" by a larger bench or a Constitution Bench on issues like mercy pleas to avoid conflicting views by smaller benches.

The hearing by a larger bench assumes significance as on April 12, a two-judge bench had held that long delay in disposing off mercy pleas by the President or the Governor of persons convicted under anti-terror laws or similar statutes cannot be a ground for commutation of death sentence. The ruling was pronounced while rejecting the plea of Khalistani terrorist and death row convict Devinderpal Singh Bhullar.
When the April 12 judgement was delivered, there were over 20 convicts facing execution. Later on, an apex court bench had granted relief to a condemned prisoner M N Das who had sought conversion of his death sentence to life imprisonment on the ground of delay in deciding his mercy plea.
On February 18 this year, a bench headed by Justice Sathasivam, which in an urgent hearing had stayed the execution of death sentence of sandalwood smuggler Veerapan's associates in a Karnataka jail, had said it would wait for the Bhullar's case judgement before dealing with other identical petitions.
It had stayed the execution of death sentence of Veerappan's elder brother Gnanaprakash and his aides Simon, Meesekar Madaiah and Bilavendran.
The outcome of the hearing before a larger bench will also have its bearing on three persons Murgan, Santhan and Perarivalan who are awaiting execution after conviction under TADA in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. A bench headed by Justice Sathasivam had on April 6 stayed the execution of eight more death row prisoners, convicted in different murder cases, whose clemency pleas were rejected by President Pranab Mukherjee.
The eight convicts facing death row in different cases are Suresh, Ramji, Gurmeet Singh, Praveen Kumar, Sonia and her
husband Sanjeev, Sundar Singh and Jafar Ali. The apex court had passed the orders on the plea of either the convicts or civil rights group and public spirited persons who had filed the petitions on behalf of the death row persons.
In its petition, Peoples Union of Democratic Rights (PUDR) had challenged the rejection of the mercy pleas of the eight convicts contending there has been delay in carrying out their execution even after it was confirmed by the apex court.
While Suresh, Ramji, Gurmeet Singh and Jafar Ali are lodged in prisons in Uttar Pradesh, former Haryana MLA Ralu
Ram Punia's daughter Sonia and her husband Sanjeev are jailed in Haryana. Praveen is in a Karnataka jail and Sundar Singh is
an inmate in a prison in Uttaranchal. Sonia and Sanjeev were awarded death penalty for killing eight members of her family, including her parents and three children of her brother, in 2001.
Gurmeet Singh was convicted for killing 13 of his family members in 1986. Jafar Ali murdered his wife and five daughters. Suresh and Ramji killed five of their relatives. 

Source : http://ibnlive.in.com/news/larger-bench-of-sc-to-hear-pleas-of-death-row-convicts/409628-3.html
 

Rape convict Dharampal not to be hanged till may 6

Express news service : Chandigarh | Wed Apr 10 2013 The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday extended stay on the execution of rape-murder convict Dharampal till May 6. He was to be hanged on April 15.

Stating that he was already acquitted by the High Court in the rape case on the basis of which he was given death sentence by the Supreme Court, Dharampal today demanded commutation of his death sentence.

In an interim relief for Dharampal, the High Court on April 7 had stayed his execution till April 10. This came a day after Haryana DGP (Prison) Sharad Kumar said that Dharampal would be executed on April 15 in Ambala jail, where he has been shifted from Rohtak.

Though jail authorities had said that Dharampal would be hanged on April 15, apprehending an early hanging, his counsel Advocate Navkiran Singh had moved the high court. Saturday being a holiday, a special request was made before the Chief Justice, who asked two high court judges to hold a special division bench.

During the hearing of the case, Singh had referred to a Supreme Court judgment, which had held that a condemned prisoner has the right to demand commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment if there has been a substantial delay in adjudication of his mercy petition.

Singh had added that if the competent authority, the President, causes delay in deciding the mercy petition of a convict, the latter should not be harassed further and should be given life imprisonment. The delay, he had added, is counted from the day the Supreme Court dismisses the appeal of a convict and orders his hanging. In Dharampal’s case, his hanging was upheld 14 years ago.

Following this, the court had asked the DGP (Prisons) to respond to Dharampal’s petition by April 10.

In 1991, Dharampal was sentenced to 10-year imprisonment for raping a girl in Sonepat. After his release on parole in 1993, Dharampal along with his brother, Nirmal, murdered the girl, her father, mother and two brothers when they were sleeping at their house.

Dharmapal and Nirmal were sentenced to death by a Sessions Court on May 5, 1997 and it was retained by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on September 29, 1998. However, the Supreme Court converted Nirmal’s death penalty to life imprisonment but Dharampal’s death sentence was retained.

His mercy petition was rejected by the Union Home Minister in 2000. Later, Dharampal filed a mercy plea to the President in 2005, which was rejected after about eight years.

Navkiran had also referred to a case filed by terrorist Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, who had moved the Supreme Court demanding that his death sentence be converted to life since there has been delay in adjudication of his mercy petition. The case stands reserved for final orders by the Supreme Court.

Source : http://m.indianexpress.com/news/rape-convict-dharampal-not-to-be-hanged-till-may-6/1100296/

Tired of backlog, President Pranab expedites mercy plea of death-row convicts

Dailybhaskar.com | Apr 04, 2013, 10:18AM IST

New Delhi: President Pranab Mukherjee is using his powers under Article 72 of the Constitution to decide the fate of convicts awaiting death sentence.

According to reports, the President does not have any mercy petition pending before him and for this reason he is acting upon the mercy petitions putforth by death-row convicts unlike his predecessors.

On Wednesday, the president upheld fate of nine people convicted for heinous crimes while commuting death sentence to life term in two others. The decision was taken after the home ministry recommended rejection of mercy pleas in five cases and left two cases open for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment with a rider that the life term should mean jail for the entire life of the convict and not just 20 years or 14 years in prison, claimed the report carried by Times of India.

The mercy files have been pending for years while moving to and fro between the President House and the home ministry, causing mental stress to both the convict and the victim's family. Since, he took over, Mukherjee has rejected mercy petitions in two high-profile cases - Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru were sent to gallows within less than three months. Mukherjee had rejected the mercy plea of Kasab on November 5 and of Afzal on February 3.

The report claimed that the President has disposed off eight death row convicts in five cases since he took over the office.

Source: http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/NAT-TOP-tired-of-backlog-president-pranab-expedites-mercy-plea-of-death-row-convicts-4225923-NOR.html (accessed on 5th April 2013)

74% of the mercy petitions were rejected by Presidents of India since 1981

74% of the mercy petitions were rejected by Presidents of India since 1981

ACHR condemns arbitrary rejection of mercy pleas of 9 death-row convicts

New Delhi: Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) in its press release today stated that President Pranab Mukherjee has reduced the President’s Office to a rubber stamp of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) while rejecting mercy pleas of the death-row convicts as per the advice of the MHA. The President has yesterday rejected mercy pleas in five cases while commuting death sentence in two cases as advised by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

As per the RTI information provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Asian Centre for Human Rights on 28 March 2013 (available at http://www.achrweb.org/press/2013/Mercypetitions.pdf), as on 28th March 2013, nine mercy petitions were pending before the President of India and these include death-row convicts Jafar Ali (Uttar Pradesh), Dharam Pal (Haryana) Praveen Kumar (Karnataka), Sonia and Sanjeev (Haryana), Sunder Singh (Uttarakhand), Shivu and Jadeswamy (Karnataka) and B A Umesh (Karnataka), Balwant Singh Rajoana (Chandigarh) and Manganlal (Madhya Pradesh).

“The case of life and death as per Article 72 of the Constitution must not be decided without objective criteria and therefore, the criteria for considering the mercy pleas must be developed to avoid arbitrariness in life and death matters. ” – stated Mr Suhas Chakma, Director of Asian Centre for Human Rights.

As per the RTI information provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Asian Centre for Human Rights on 28 March 2013, since the Supreme Court laid down the rarest of rare case doctrine in the Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab case, the Presidents of India had considered 112 mercy pleas since 1981 to 4 April 2013, out of which 83 mercy petitions or 74% of the mercy petitions were rejected while mercy pleas of only 31 death row-convicts were commuted to life imprisonment.

ACHR called upon the Government of India to abolish death penalty.

Source: http://kashmirwatch.com/humanrights.php/2013/04/05/74-of-the-mercy-petitions-were-rejected-by-presidents-of-india-since-1981.html (accessed on 5th April 2013)

President Pranab clears all 7 pending mercy plea cases

Himanshi Dhawan & Vishwa Mohan, TNN Apr 4, 2013, 04.32AM IST

 

NEW DELHI: Speculation mounted on Wednesday about the fate of nine people convicted for heinous crimes amid indications that President Pranab Mukherjee had upheld execution in five cases while commuting death sentence to life term in two others. Sources said that the President used his powers under Article 72 of the Constitution to dispose of the mercy petitions of nine people convicted in seven heinous crimes. However, the details of individual cases could not be ascertained. The home ministry had recommended rejection of mercy pleas in five cases and left two cases open for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment with a rider that the life term should mean jail for the entire life of the convict and not just 20 years or 14 years in prison. Sources said that the President does not have any mercy petition pending before him now.

Though the case-wise recommendation for convicts was not known as both the home ministry and President House did not reply to repeated questions, the seven cases on the President's desk related to multiple murders, including one in which a convict who was out on bail on rape charge had killed five members of the victim's family. Among the cases that are reported to have been disposed of include the longest pending case of Gurmeet Singh of Uttar Pradesh who was convicted for killing 13 members of a family on August 17, 1986. The others cases are of Suresh and Ramji, also from UP, who were convicted for killing five members of their brother's family and Dharampal from Haryana who had murdered five members of the family of a girl he had raped in 1993. He had murdered the family while on bail in the rape case.

The other cases are of Sonia, daughter of a former Haryana MLA, and her husband Sanjeev, who drugged and killed eight of her family members in Hisar in 2001, including her parents. Sunder Singh from Uttarakhand was convicted for rape and murder on June 30, 1989; Jafar Ali from Uttar Pradesh was convicted for killing wife and five daughter in 2002 and Praveen Kumar of Karnataka was convicted for killing four members of a family on February 23, 1994. The mercy files, which have been pending for years while moving to and fro between the President House and the home ministry, has seen an unprecedented movement of late, resulting in two quick executions (Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru) within less than three months.

Mukherjee had rejected the mercy plea of Kasab on November 5 and of Afzal on February 3. So far, the President has disposed off eight death row convicts in five cases. Mukherjee has also rejected the mercy petitions of Saibanna Ningappa Natikar (Karnataka: convicted for killing wife and daughter) and mercy petitions of slain brigand Veerappan's associates Gnanaprakash, Simon, 'Meesai' Madaian and Pilavendran, who were sentenced to death for killing 22 police personnel in 1993. However, the mercy petition of Atbir (Delhi), who was convicted for murder of his step-mother, step-sister and step-brother over property, was commuted to life imprisonment by the President.

Very few of the death penalty cases, however, reach the President House every year. Even during the tenure of the then President Pratibha Patil, death penalties of 35 convicts were commuted to life imprisonment between 2007 and 2012. Patil had rejected mercy pleas in three cases, comprising five convicts.

Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-04/india/38277382_1_mercy-petition-saibanna-ningappa-natikar-atbir accessed 5th April 2013

More than 400 prisoners await the death sentence as justice is delayed

By Aman Sharma
PUBLISHED: 21:38 GMT, 9 March 2012 | UPDATED: 21:38 GMT, 9 March 2012

Ajmal Qasab and Mohammad Afzal are not the only ones on death row in India. There are 402 prisoners who await the noose. The latest report of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) says there are 402 convicts, including 10 women, in Indian jails who face the death penalty.

The report, Prison Statistics India 2010, says there has been no execution in India since 2004, when rapist Dhananjay Chatterji was hanged in West Bengal. The delay in deciding on such executions over the last six years and the slow wheels of justice mean that the count of persons on death row has increased from 273 in 2005 to 402 in 2010. Delhi's Tihar Jail alone has 18 prisoners on the death row.Out of the 402 people facing capital punishment, 25 have their mercy petitions pending before the President.


It is, however, not clear how many have their mercy petitions pending before the state governors or whose cases are yet to attain finality before the Supreme Court (SC). Last week, the SC, which is monitoring the pending mercy petition cases, had asked the state governments to furnish a report on all such pleas pending with the governors.

The NCRB report says that out of the 402 death row convicts, the maximum are from Uttar Pradesh, whose jails have 131 such condemned prisoners. It is followed by Karnataka (60), Maharashtra (49), Bihar (31), West Bengal (20), Delhi (18), Tamil Nadu (16), Kerala (14) and Jharkhand (12). The NCRB report says that in 2010, 97 prisoners were awarded the death sentence, while 62 convicts had their capital punishment commuted to life.


PRISONER FACTS
* Out of the 3.68 lakh inmates in jails, 15,037 are women
* Nearly 65 per cent of all inmates are undertrials
* There are 1,663 children staying in jails because their mothers are either convicts or undertrials
* 19,925 inmates are graduates or post-graduates; Nearly 6,000 such inmates are lodged in UP jails
* Chhattisgarh has the most crowded jails with a 237 per cent occupancy, while Delhi's is 173 per cent


Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2112877/More-400-prisoners-await-death-sentence-justice-delayed.html [accessed on 15th March 2012]

Final hearing of death-row convict's petition on Thursday

J. Venkatesan: NEW DELHI, February 8, 2012

Mercy petition turned down by President after a delay of 12 years

The Supreme Court on Tuesday posted for final hearing on Thursday a Special Leave Petition filed by death-row convict Mahendra Nath Das, whose mercy petition was rejected by the President after an inordinate delay of 12 years and plea for commutation to life imprisonment on this ground was dismissed by the Gauhati High Court.

A Bench of Justices A.K. Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar, without passing any order on his petition seeking stay on execution of death sentence, posted the main SLP, against the High Court order dated January 30, for final hearing on February 9.

Das, in his writ petition, had contended that the delay in deciding his mercy petition by the President and finally giving the assent for the death sentence had resulted in excruciating agony and trauma for almost 12 years for no explainable reasons and this was a valid ground for awarding life sentence.

On Tuesday, it was submitted by senior counsel Shyam Divan, along with counsel Vrinda Grover, that a Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and S.J. Mukhopadhaya had already listed for final hearing on February 22 the appeals filed by Devendar Pal Singh Bhullar and other connected matters relating to delay in deciding clemency petitions and that the appeal filed by Das be also listed before the same Bench.

However, the Bench said it would hear the matter and issued notice to Solicitor-General Rohinton Nariman and the State of Assam and posted it for final hearing on February 9, when it is expected to take a decision to stay his execution or not.

The last execution the country witnessed was that of Dhananjay Chatterjee in 2004.

In December last, a Bench headed by Justice Singhvi in its order had said: “A perusal of the list enclosed with the information made available by the President's Secretariat on June 2, 2011 shows that as many as 17 mercy petitions were processed. Keeping in view the importance of the issue arising in the writ petition and the fact that a large number of other persons may not be, due to sheer ignorance, able to file petition under Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution or move the Court as has been done by the petitioner in this case, we request senior counsels Ram Jethmalani and T.R. Andhyarujina of this Court to assist us as amicus curiae.”

The Bench asked the Additional Solicitor-General to place before the Court a compilation containing details of mercy petitions received by the Government of India and the governments of different States and their status as on the date of preparation of the compilation.

The Bench said that the copies of the compilation should be made available to counsel assisting Mr. Jethmalani and Mr. Andhyarujina.

The case of the prosecution was that on April 24, 1996, Mahendra Das beheaded Harakanta Das at Fancy Bazaar and surrendered with the victim's head. He was arrested and put in jail in 1997 after the sessions court ordered his execution.

The Gauhati High Court and Supreme Court upheld capital punishment in 1998 and 1999 respectively. Subsequently, Mahendra Das' family moved a mercy petition to the then President K. R Narayanan in 1999. The plea was finally turned down in May 2011 by President Pratibha Devisingh Patil, setting the stage for his hanging. The High Court, on September 8, 2011, dismissed a writ petition filed by the convict's mother, Kusumbala Das, for commuting her son's death sentence to life imprisonment, holding that she had no locus standi to file it on behalf of her son. Then, Mahendra Das filed a writ petition pleading for commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment since he had already spent about 14 years in jail during the disposal of his petition seeking presidential clemency.

There had been protests against the death sentence of Mahendra Das. Even Amnesty International expressed concern over his imminent execution.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2869581.ece
accessed on 10th February 2012

No time cap for mercy petitions, says Centre

CHENNAI: The power of the President of India to decide on mercy petitions under Article 72 of the Constitution is discretionary and cannot be taken away by any statutory provision and cannot be altered, modified or interfered with in any manner by any statutory provision or authority, the Union Home Secretary (Judicial) said on Friday in his common counter affidavits filed in response to the three writ petitions from Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan, convicted of killing former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi.
Nullifying the trio’s main contention that there was inordinate delay of over 11 years in disposing of their mercy petitions, the counter said the exercise of the power under this Article was not curtailed by any limitation as to the time frame within which such power conferred might be exercised. It was a special power overriding all other laws, rules and regulations in force. No time frame could be stipulated or set up for the President in this regard. Delay by itself did not entail the persons under sentence of death to demand for quashing of the sentence or converting it into life imprisonment. So, there could be no fixed period within which any mercy petition ought to be disposed of. The contention that if the mercy petition was not disposed of within a fixed period, it would render the sentence of death inexecutable, was untenable. The court, in exercise of power under Article 226 or Article 32, could not prescribe a time limit for disposal of the mercy petition. The citations of the Supreme Court judgments by the petitioners would not apply in this case, the counters said.
Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan had lived a normal life in prison like any other prisoner and were given opportunities to develop their skills. They were allowed to pursue their studies as well as other literary and cultural activities in the prison. So, it was fanciful to contend that they suffered mental torture, which caused violation of their fundamental rights, the counters said.
The behaviour of the trio in the prison, even if good, could not take away the reality that they had committed an extremely gruesome, heinous, cold-blooded and cruel crime. It was a well-planned and predetermined brutal murder with the active connivance and help of the petitioners by the terrorist organisation LTTE, which caused the death of, besides the former PM, 15 other innocent persons. The petitioners deserved the extreme penalty of death and nothing short of it. Giving deterrent punishment alone could prevent potential offenders from committing such crimes, the counters reiterated.
Just because some eminent personalities, social organisations, political parties, MPs, MLAs, former judges and jurists had written to the State government or to the President of India, it could not be considered to be a valid ground to commute the death sentence, the counter reiterated. Bowing to their demand would set a bad precedent and in the future it was likely to create and be a cause for communal and religious protests and unrest. Some persons/politicians demanded the commutation for political mileage. Public support could not be a benchmark or scale to measure, it said.
The decision of the President was not arbitrary and was not based on extraneous considerations. Justice had to be done not only to the convicts but also to the victims, the counters said.

Source: Tamil Nadu | Updated Oct 30, 2011 at 11:01am IST
Express News Service , The New Indian Express
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/no-time-cap-for-mercy-petitions-says-centre/197241-60-118.html accessed on 8th Nov 2011

Rajiv Gandhi assassination: HC stays execution of 3 killers

Ten days before they were to hang, three Rajiv Gandhi killers today got a reprieve from the Madras High Court which stayed their execution for eight weeks even as the

Tamil Nadu Assembly in an unprecedented unanimous resolution appealed to the President to reconsider their mercy pleas.

Stopping the execution set for September 9, a Bench comprising justices C Nagappan and M Sathayanarayanan issued notices to the Centre, the state government and the police, observing there had been a delay of over 11 years in the disposal of their petitions seeking Presidential clemency.

Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan, lodged in Vellore Jail, were convicted and sentenced to death in the case relating to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi during an election rally at Sriperumpudur on May 21, 1991 by an LTTE suicide bomber.

“The High Court is doing justice. Be sure. They have stayed the execution,” Ram Jethmalani, who pleaded their case, told reporters after the court's interim order.

Jethmalani, Colin Gonsalves and R Vaigai, appearing for the three convicts, contended the “inordinate and inexplicable delay” in disposing of their mercy petitions violated Article 21 of the Constitution (Protection of life and personal liberty).

Shortly before the High Court order, the Assembly unanimously adopted the resolution moved by Jayalalithaa requesting President Pratibha Patil to reconsider the mercy petitions rejected early this month.

A huge crowd outside the court cheered the interim order that was keenly awaited by leaders of several political parties and human rights groups who have launched a campaign to save the lives of the three convicts.

MDMK leader Vaiko, who has been strongly pleading for their release, was also present in court.

The delay of 11 years in deciding their mercy plea was “mental torture” for the convicts, said Jethmalani. “You make them suffer a thousand times. Is this justice?” Jethmalani asked.

In the Assembly, bowing to pressure from various political leaders, Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa moved the resolution urging the President to commute the death sentences of the three convicts.

She said the people of the state were “saddened” by the fact that the death sentence was to be executed soon.

The move by Jayalalithaa came a day after she told the Assembly that she did not have the power to annul the death sentence or put their execution on hold after the rejection of their mercy plea by the President.

“Many political parties have appealed to me to commute death sentences and in order to respect the sentiments of the people of the state, I appeal to the members of the house to pass the resolution unanimously,” she said.

The court order and the Assembly initiative were welcomed by Perarivalan's family members, present in the court.

His mother Arputhammal claimed all three condemned prisoners were innocent and should be allowed to live.

“I was in grief on whether I would get my son back. But Amma (Jayalalithaa) has passed a resolution and has given me joy. She has given me hope of bringing back my son. I am extremely happy. I don't know how to express my happiness. I am thankful to all those who worked for this,” she told reporters.

“Everyone has struggled for my son and this support should be there till my son is released,” she said before breaking down.

Perarivalan's father Kuyildasan said the stay was due to the efforts of the people and lawyers.

Welcoming the adoption of the resolution in the Assembly, he said different parties have come together to request the President to reconsider the mercy petitions.

Perarivalan's sister said she had immense faith in the judiciary. “This is only a stay. What we want is complete release.”

The three convicts were sentenced to death in 1999, along with Nalini, who is married to Murugan. After Nalini gave birth to a baby girl in jail, her death sentence was commuted to life following a request made by Sonia Gandhi.

Source:http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-hc-stays-execution-of-3-killers/839197/

Indian Express
Posted: Tue Aug 30 2011, 11:23 hrs