Q5. Instances of the President's delay in commuting death sentences has come under public debate as denial of justice. Should there be a time specified for the President to accept/reject such petitions? Analyse

Model Answer:

Introduction

In India, the President has the constitutional power to grant clemency under Article 72, which includes the power to commute death sentences. However, delays in deciding mercy petitions have raised concerns about the denial of justice, as prolonged uncertainty can cause significant psychological distress to prisoners and their families. This has led to calls for a time-bound framework for the President's decision on mercy petitions.

Body

Need for a Specified Timeframe for Mercy Petitions

• Prevention of Mental Agony: Extended delays lead to a “death-row phenomenon,” where prisoners face prolonged psychological suffering. Swift decisions could reduce the mental anguish associated with indefinite waiting.
• Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Delays in clemency decisions undermine the fairness of the justice system. Quick resolutions would uphold the principle of timely justice, especially in cases of irreversible punishment.
• Avoidance of Arbitrary Delays: A time-bound process would prevent arbitrary delays, ensuring a more structured, transparent, and accountable clemency mechanism. This would bolster public trust in the process.
• Adverse Judicial Impact: Courts have previously commuted death sentences to life imprisonment due to unreasonable delays, as seen in Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014). A fixed timeframe could reduce judicial interventions in clemency matters.
• Humanitarian Grounds: Many death-row inmates come from vulnerable backgrounds. Prompt clemency decisions can better address humanitarian considerations, aligning the justice process with compassion and fairness.
• Alignment with Global Standards: Many countries impose time constraints on clemency decisions, emphasising a humane and efficient justice system. India could adopt similar practices to reflect a modern approach to clemency.

Challenges to Implementing a Time Limit

• Need for Careful Consideration: Clemency petitions require thorough examination of legal, humanitarian, and political factors, which may be complex and time-consuming.
• Interference with Executive Discretion: Specifying a timeframe may be seen as limiting the discretionary powers of the President, which could face constitutional scrutiny.

Conclusion

‍Setting a reasonable timeframe for deciding mercy petitions would ensure a balance between justice and compassion, reducing undue mental distress for convicts and strengthening public confidence in the legal system. While such a measure may pose administrative challenges, a streamlined, time-bound process would better reflect the principles of justice and humanity, aligning India’s clemency practices with a modern, efficient judicial system.

‍