The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Union Government's plea seeking to introduce victim-centric guidelines in awarding sentences, particularly in cases involving the death penalty. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria stated that the application lacked merit. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of upholding the constitutional and human rights of prisoners, even in the face of public outrage or administrative difficulties.
The government's application, filed in January 2020, requested modifications to the existing guidelines to make them more "victim-centric". It also sought stricter timelines for filing mercy and curative petitions in cases involving capital punishment. The government argued that the current system is predominantly accused-centric and does not adequately consider the interests of victims, their families, and society at large. They highlighted the absence of a time limit for availing legal and constitutional remedies, leading to delays in the execution of death sentences. Specifically, the government proposed a seven-day deadline for death row convicts to file a curative petition after the dismissal of a review petition, and another seven-day deadline for executing the death sentence after the rejection of the mercy petition.
The Supreme Court's ruling reaffirms the principles established in the 2014 Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India case, which laid down comprehensive guidelines to protect the rights of death row prisoners. These guidelines include provisions stating that delays in deciding mercy petitions can be grounds for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment and mandating a 14-day period between the rejection of a mercy petition and the execution of the sentence. The court emphasized that procedural fairness under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be compromised.
The government's plea emerged in the backdrop of the 2012 Delhi gangrape and murder case (Nirbhaya case), where repeated petitions filed by the convicts delayed their execution. The execution was eventually carried out in March 2020 after the Supreme Court rejected the convicts' final appeal. The government argued that the existing framework allowed death row convicts to indefinitely delay executions by filing petitions at staggered intervals, resulting in procedural abuse.
Opposing the government's plea, senior advocates argued that courts had already passed a series of judgments on the matter, making additional victim-centric guidelines unwarranted. The Supreme Court clarified in January 2020 that the issue of conviction and sentence in the Shatrughan Chauhan case would remain undisturbed while dealing with the government's plea. The court also sought responses from various stakeholders on whose petition the 2014 guidelines were initially laid down.
The Supreme Court's decision underscores the importance of balancing the rights of convicts with the interests of victims and society. The court has chosen not to disturb the existing legal framework, emphasizing that death penalty jurisprudence in India must remain rooted in constitutional morality and human rights protections. The ruling highlights that procedural fairness for convicts is a hallmark of due process under Article 21 of the Constitution.
