Subject: Indian Polity

The recent public discourse on presidential delays in commuting death sentences has highlighted the complex intersection of constitutional powers, human rights, and judicial efficiency. With 5,697 commutation petitions pending as of April 2024, the need for a structured timeline for presidential decisions has become increasingly relevant.

Constitutional Framework and Current Challenges

• The power to grant pardons under Article 72 is a significant constitutional responsibility of the President, requiring careful deliberation and consideration of various factors.
• The absence of specific timeframes has led to:
  • Prolonged uncertainty for death row inmates causing severe psychological trauma.
  • Violation of principles established in Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India (2014) regarding humane treatment of prisoners.
• The delay affects both procedural justice and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21.

Arguments in Favor of Time-Bound Decisions

• Legal Certainty: A defined timeline would ensure predictability and transparency in the mercy petition process.
• International Best Practices: Following models like the Polish Supreme Court's 2023 ruling which streamlined clemency procedures.
• Administrative Efficiency: Fixed timeframes would expedite the processing of pending cases and reduce bureaucratic delays.

Challenges in Implementation

• The need to balance thorough consideration with timely decisions.
• Complex nature of cases requiring detailed examination of evidence and circumstances.
• Constitutional autonomy of the President's office in exercising clemency powers.

Way Forward

• Implementation of a digital tracking system for mercy petitions.
• Establishment of a dedicated cell for processing commutation requests.
• Regular review meetings between the Ministry of Home Affairs and President's office.
• Setting up an advisory committee to assist in timely evaluation of cases.

The implementation of time-bound decisions on mercy petitions requires careful balancing between efficiency and due process. A structured framework, similar to the "rarest of rare" doctrine in capital punishment cases, could ensure both justice and humanity while maintaining the sanctity of presidential powers under Article 72.