NEW DELHI— Supreme Court of India (SCI), on Wednesday March 12, 2014, delivered a significant judgement, and dismissed the plea of Government of India (GOI) seeking review of its verdict holding that inordinate delay on the part of government in deciding mercy plea can be a ground to commute the death sentence of a convict.
The apex court rejected the GOI’s contention that the January 21, 2014 Judgement by which 15 death row convicts were granted life, and provided similar relief for the assassins of Rajiv Gandhi, is “patently illegal, and suffers from errors apparent”.
A bench led by Chief Justice P Sathasivam said, “We have carefully gone through the review petitions, and the connected papers. We find no merit in the review petitions, and the same are accordingly dismissed”. It ruled that “permission for hearing in open court is rejected.”
The bench, which decided the review petition in chamber, declined the submission of the GOI stating that such an important issue should have been heard by a Constitution bench, an dthat the judgement passed by a three-judge bench was without “jurisdiction”.
“It is respectfully submitted that the impugned judgement is patently illegal, suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record, and flies in the face of well-established principles of law laid down by this court, and contained in the Constitution, and other statutes,” the review petition had said.
“It is submitted that in the present case, the issue raised was that of commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment on the ground of delay, which allegedly attracted Article 21 (right to life) in favor of the convicts. Therefore, it involved a substantial issue of interpretation of the Constitution, and ought to have been heard by a bench of five Judges, as mandated under Article 145 of the Constitution,” it had said.
The bench did not accept the submission of the government referring to an earlier apex court ruling in which it was mentioned that nature of crime be considered while commuting death sentence of a convict.
The government had said the previous verdict observed that there is a “distinction” between Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), and other offenses. “Thus, there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and the impugned judgement merits a review,” it had said.
