Mercy petitions have recently been in the news due a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India. The court declined to order the government to commute the death penalty of Balwant Singh Rajoana, a man convicted of assassinating former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh in 1995. Instead, the court said it was up to the government to decide on the mercy petition when necessary. This ruling brings the topic of mercy petitions to the forefront and warrants a deeper understanding of what they are, their place in the Indian Constitution, and how they work.
The Definition of Mercy Petition
A mercy petition is a formal request made by a person who has been sentenced to death or imprisonment, seeking mercy from either the President or the Governor, depending on the case. This concept is practiced in many nations including the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, and India. It ties back to the fundamental right to life as outlined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Constitutional Framework for Mercy Petitions in India
In India’s constitutional framework, a mercy petition to the President serves as the last resort for a convict when sentenced by the law. Such a petition can be presented under Article 72 of the Constitution of India. The power to grant pardons also lies with the Governors of States as per Article 161 of the Constitution of India.
Process of Filing Mercy Petition
Although there is no written procedure for handling mercy petitions, convicts or their relatives can submit a written petition to the President after all other legal reliefs have been extinguished. These petitions are received by the President’s secretariat and forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs for evaluation and recommendation.
Grounds of Mercy Petition
Sidestepping the assumption that mercy is a prisoner’s right which could be claimed, mercy petitions are granted on grounds such as the convict’s health conditions, their mental fitness, their family circumstances particularly if they are the sole breadwinner, among others.
Judicial Review and Important Judgments
The clemency power of the President and Governor under Article 72 and Article 161 is subject to judicial review, as held in the case of Epuru Sudhakar & Anr. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2006). Several conditions must be met for the petitioner to claim this power. If any order is passed without proper application of mind, if it is malafide, based on irrelevant considerations, or suffers from arbitrariness, then the petitioner can apply for a judicial review.
Many other notable cases have formed the basis of India’s current mercy petition laws. These include Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981), Dhananjoy Chatterjee State of West Bengal (1994), and Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989).
Terms Related to Pardoning Power
It is important to understand terms like “pardon,” “commute,” “remission,” “reprieve,” and “respite,” as they play crucial roles in understanding how the pardoning power works.
Mercy Petition Laws in Other Countries
Mercy petitions or similar concepts are present in many countries. For instance, the US Constitution allows the President to grant reprieves or pardon under federal law, except in cases of impeachment. In the UK, the Constitutional monarch has the power to pardon offences based on ministerial advice. In Canada, the National Parole Board under the Criminal Records Act can grant such reliefs.
The Impact of Mercy Petitions
Mercy petitions act as a double-edged sword. On one hand, they serve as a last resort for convicts to seek justice and fairness. On the other hand, delays in dealing with mercy petitions can cause distress to convicts and victims, potentially delaying justice. Therefore, there is a need for policies that limit unnecessary delays in filing and granting mercy petitions, ensuring smooth functioning of the judiciary.
Last Modified: February 20, 2024