Holding

An inordinate, unjustified delay in the execution of a death sentence violates Article 21 and mandates commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment.

Summary

The petition under Article 32 sought relief for Gyasi Ram, a death‑row inmate whose mercy petitions had remained pending for about eight years due to administrative delays, including the pending petition of his accomplice Daya Ram. The Supreme Court examined whether such inordinate delay in executing a death sentence violated Article 21 and warranted commutation to life imprisonment. Relying on earlier judgments (Vatheeswaran, Sher Singh, Bachan Singh, Triveniben), the Court held that no fixed period of delay is decisive, but an unjustified prolonged delay is unconstitutional. It emphasized that speedy trial and prompt disposal of mercy petitions are implicit components of the right to life and liberty. Consequently, the Court ordered that Gyasi Ram's death sentence be altered to life imprisonment.

Issues considered

Does an undue and unexplained delay in the execution of a death sentence violate Article 21 of the Constitution?
Can a death sentence, once confirmed by the judiciary, be commuted to life imprisonment on account of such delay?
Is there any fixed period of delay after which the death sentence must be set aside?
Is the right to a speedy trial implicit in Article 21 and applicable to the disposal of mercy petitions?
Is a petition under Article 32 maintainable for relief against delay in execution of a death sentence?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 235(2), s. 354(3)
Constitution of Indias. 161, s. 21, s. 32, s. 72
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

death penaltymercy petitiondelayArticle 21Article 32commutationspeedy trialconstitutional lawhuman rights

Judgment

MADHU MEHTA
_A v.
UNION OF INDIA
>-_-

AUGUST 9, 1989

B [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]

Constitution of India-Articles 21, 32, 72 and 161-Undue long
delay in execution of sentence of death-Sentence can be altered to
imprisonment for life-No fixed perji>d of delay can be considered
decisive-Speedy trial-Part of fundamental right to life and liberty.

C This Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution bas been filed by_)
one Madbu Mehta National Convenor of Hindustani Andolan and a I
Social worker praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus or an appropriate ...4.,
direction in regard to one Gyasi Ram s/o Param aged 60 years, who, is
stated to be waiting for a decision on bis mercy petition by the President
D of India for about 8 or 9 years. He is stated to be confined in the Death
Cell, Central Jail, Jbansi. The Circumstances under which the Writ
Petition bas been filed may be stated thus:

Gyasi Ram was convicted under Section 302, IPC. and sentenced
to death by Sessions Judge, Jbansi on October 19, 1978 for committing
E the ·Cold-blooded murder of one Bbagwan Singh, a Government
servant. One Daya Ram was also associated with him for the Commis-
sion of the said Crime, who had escaped. The death sentence awarded
to Gyasi Ram was confirmed both by the High Court as also by this
Court.

F On 18.12.1981, the wife of Gyasi Ram filed a mercy Petition
before the President of India which remained undisposed till tbe filing
of this Writ Petition.
_j .
It appears that mercy petitions praented by Gyasi Ram on
6.10.1981 and 26.11.1981 were rejected by the Governor of the State
G and were received in the Ministry of Home Affairs on S.12.1981 for
consideration by the President of India. On 21.4.1983, the mercy petl·
tions were put up for orders before the President, and tbe Presillent
returned the file for further consideration.

In the meantime, information was received by the Government
H from the Registry of this Court that Daya Ram 1/0 Moolcband had alllo
774
MADHU MEHTA v. U.0.1. 775
·) filed a Special Leave Petition against the Judgment dated 17.10.1984of A
' ihe Allahabad High Court whereby the death sentence imposed upon
him was confirmed. Subsequently two mercy petitions were filed on bis
behalf which were forwarded to ihe Governor· of the State for consi-
deration in the first instance on 9.4.84 and 9.8.85, which remained
undisposed.
B
In the Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India
attempt has been made to explain this long delay occurred in the dis-
/ posal of the mercy petitions-the main reason, amongst others, that is
\. attributed to the long delay in "disposing of the mercy petitions of Gyasi
·Ram, is the pendency of the mercy petitions filed by Daya Ram, with
the Guvernor of the State, in regard to which the Union is stated to be in
touch and Correspondence with the State Government. It is said that c
the decision on the mercy Petition moved on behalf of Daya Ram .bas a
direct bearing to the decision to be taken on the petitions moved on
behalf of Gyasi Ram. It was only on 15.3.89, the Union Government
had been informed on telex that the mercy petition of Daya Ram bas
since been disposed of. D

The Sessions Judge, Jbansi bad visited the said convict in Jail on
22.5.88 and had sent a report to the effect "Gyasi's mental state is such
that be might commit suicide by hanging his bead on the iron grill of bis
cell if a decision on bis mercy petition is not taken soon."
E
Thereafter the instant Petition has been filed. The question that
arose for defermination by this Court, in the facts and Circumstances,
of the case was whether by reason of the long delay in the execution of
the death sentence awarded to Gyasi Ram, be was entitled to any
commutation, alteration in his sentence in view of this Court's Judg-
ments in T. V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1983] 2 SCR
F
348 and Sher Singh & Ors. v. The State of Punjab, [1983] 2 SCR 582.

Allowing the Writ Petition, this Court,

HELD: Undue long delay in execution of the sentence of death
would entitle the condemned person to approach this Court or to be
G
approached under Article 32 of the Constitution but this Court would
-} only examine the nature of delay caused and circumstances that ensued
aftn the sentence was finally confirmed by the Judicial process and will
have no jurisdiction to re-open the conclusions reached by the Court
while finally maintaining the sentence of death. [782G I
H
The Court is entitled and indeed ob~ed to consider the question
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.

J.. -
A of inordinate delay in the light of all circumstances of the case to decide
whether the execution of sentence should be carried out or should be
altered into imprisonment for life. No fixed period of delay can be
considered to h£ decisive. [782H-783A]

Speedy trial in Criminal cases though may not be a fundamental
B right, is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21. Speedy }-·
trial is part of one's fundamental right to life and liberty. [783B]
'f
_-.1
There is no justifiable ground for keeping the mercy petition of
Daya Ram and Gyasi Ram pending for such a long time. In the halJ '~
~-

yearly return dated 8th October, 1985, and thereafter in the successiv .
c half yearly returns of the Uttar Pradesh Government upto 16th Jan.,
1989, year after year, the Mercy Petitions of Daya Ram were shown to _...._'
have remailled unattended and undisposed and consequently the
Mercy Petition made to the President of India by Gyasi Ram was also
undisposed. [781B]

D The time and the manner in which the Mercy Petition has been
dealt with In this case in respect of Gyasi Ram make sad reading
and speak of the deplorable lack of speed and promptitude which
in these matters should be there. In the meantime, there is no deny-
ing the fact that Gyasi Ram has suffered a great deal of mental pain and ~-
agony. [78IC]
E
The Convict has suffered mental agony of living under the shadow
of death, for long far too long. He should not suffer that agony any
longer. [7830]

The Court directed that the death sentence imposed on Gyasi Ram \
F be altered to imprisonment for life. [783E] i
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, {1983] I SCR 1451 and Smt.
Triveniben v. State of Gujarat, [ 1989] 1 SCC 678, referred to.

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition '
O (Criminal) No. 216 of 1989

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) .\, ._

Surya Kant and M.C. Mehta for the Petitioner.

H Anil Dev Singh, Girish Chandra, Ms. A. Subhashini and Dalveer
Bhandari for the Respondent.
MADHU MEHTA v. U.0.1. [MUKHARJI, J.] 777

The Judgment of the Col!rt was delivered by A

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is a petitio~ under.Articl~
32 of the Constitution filed by one Madhu Mehta, .who is the National
Convenor of Hindustani: Andolan. This. petition seeks a.writ of Habeas ·
Corpus or. an appropriate direction with regard to one Shri Gyasi Ram,
S/o Shri ·Param aged. above 60 years, who, it is claimed, has been B
waiting decision on his Mercy Petition pending before the President of
India for about 8 or 9 years. The said Gyasi.. Ram was iii all relevant
time lodged in "DEATH CELL, CENTRAL JAIL" JHANSI having
I .been convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 of Indian
"°!·Penal Code and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge,
Jhansi on October 19, 1978. It appears that Gyasi Ram was convicted c
and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge, .Jhansi on 19th
October, 1978 for committing murder, which has been described by
the Under'Secretary (Judicial), Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of
India, as the 'cold blooded murder' of a Government servant, namely,
Bhagwan Singh, who was the resident of Mauranipur Tehsil, in Dis-
trict Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. There then were arrears of land revenue D
due from Gyasi Ram and also one Moo! Chand. For the purpose of
realising the said arrears of land revenue, their property was attached
by Amin Bhagwan Singh and the same was put to sale by auction. The
c ~ auction took place on 26th December, 1976 and after the auction while
the said Amin was returning along with his Peon Sripat from village
Kakwara after delivering the sale certificate to.the auction purchaser, E
they were way laid by Daya Ram (son of Moo! Chand) and Gyasi
Ram, the convicts involved in this case. In the evidence, it was stated
that Daya Ram who was armed with pistol fired at the deceased Amin
Bhagwan Singh who fell down from his cycle. While Daya Ram held
l down Amin Bhagwan Singh, Gyasi Ram, the person about whom this
.•· \_. petition is concerned, cut Bhagwan Singh's throat with the sword he F
was carrying and inflicte.d other injuries also. After this incident, both
Daya Ram and Gyasi Ram, it has been stated, escaped. Gyasi Ram
was, however, arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to death, as
mentioned hereinbefore. The death sentence was passed on Gyasi
Ram by the learned Sessions Judge on 19th October, 1976. The
Allahabad High Court confirmed this death sentenced on 28th G
February, 1979. This Court dismissed his Criminal Appeal No. 362/79
,;.. on 17th March, 1981. Mercy Petition was filed by the wife of the
convicted to the President of India on 18th December, 1981. It appears
that Mercy Petition has still not been disposed of. Daya Ram had
absconded and could not be put on trial along with Gyasi Ram. It
appears further that Gyasi Ram's Mercy Petitions dated 6th October, H

___ ,,_____ _:_;__,_,_,,
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1989] 3 S.C.R.

A 1981and26th November, 1981 were rejected by the GovernorofUttar
Pradesh on the 26th November, 1981 and were received in the Ministry
of Home Affairs on the 5th December, 1981 for the consideration of
the President of India. From the affidavit filed on beh~.I; of the
• Goven.iment of India, it appears that after processing the case, the
matter was put up before the President of India on 21st April, 1983 for
B his orders on the Mercy Petitions and that the President after examin-
ing the case file, returned the file on 30th July, 1983 for further consi·
deration. While the Ministry of Home Affairs was processing the case
of Gyasi Ram further, the intimation was received from this Court on
13th November, 1984 that Daya Ram, son of Moo! Chand had also
filed a Special Leave Petition against the judgment date 17th October,
. C 1984 of the Allahabad High Court by which the sentence of death was
confirmed on him. It appears from the order of this Court dated 18th
February, 1985 dismissing Daya Ram's Special Leave Petition that this
· Daya Ram was the same person who was Gyasi Ram's partner in the
crime as ml.'i;itioned hereinbefore. Subsequently,.two Mercy Petitions
were filed on behalf of Daya Ram which were forwarded for the con-
D sideration of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in the first instance by the
+
Ministry of Home Affairs dated 9th April, 1984 and 9th August, 1985
respectively. These still remain undisposed of. It has been asserted on
behalf of the Government of India in the half-yearly return dated 8th
August, 1985 submitted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh that it
was reported that they had received a Mercy Petition from Daya Ram. \
E . Thereafter, iri successive half-yearly reports, the last of these being
dated 16th January; 1989, the State Government had been saying that
-~
the Mercy Petition of Daya Ram was still under oonsideration. It is the
version of the Government that in view of the implications of Daya
Ram and Gyasi Ram in the same crime, it was considered, it is stated,
,_ that the decision.on the Mercy Petition of Daya Ram by the Governor
, F , of Uttar Pradesh would have a direct bearing on the consideration of
the .Mercy Petition of Gyasi Ram by the President of India. It was,
accordinly, felt, so it is ·asserted, that it was desirable· to await the
decision of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on Daya Ram's Mercy
Petition.. But it was only on 18th January, 1989 that by a Wireless
Message, the .Central Government asked the State Government to let
G - the Ministry of Home Affairs know the decision of the Governor on
Daya Ram's Mercy Petition and to send it immediately for considera-
. _ ti on of the President of India so that the cases of Gyasi Ram and Daya
-- Ram could be submitted together to the President. But the Govern-
ment did not move. It is further stated that in reply to the Wireless
Message of 18th January, 1989 the State Government throu_J;h its
H letter dated 1st February, 1989 1timated that the Mercy Petition of
......

MAOHU MEHTA v. U.0.1. [MUKHARJI, J.J . 77') '•

Daya Ram was·· still under consideration. Thereafter, there was A
another request to the Chief Secretary by demi-official letter of the
Ministry of Home Affairs dated 3rd February, 1989 to expedite consi-
deration of Daya Ram's Mercy Petition. And upon this, it is stated that
by a telex message dated 15th March, 1989, the State Government had
intimated that the Governor of Uttar Pradesh had rejected the Mercy
Petition and that formal letter of State Government would follow. It B
was·stated on behalf of the Government of India that Mercy Petition of
Daya Ram was received by the Ministry of Horne Affairs on 21st
! March, 1989 along with the letter. In the affidavit, it is stated that after
\ collecting certain further information from the Supreme Court
-Registry, the Ministry of Horne Affairs "was now ready to process the
Mercy Petitions of Gyasi Ram and Daya Ram and submit the same to C
the President of India for consideration''. The deponent was good
enough to state in the affidavit that the delay factor would be kept in
view while taking a final decision in the case of Gyasi Ram and he was
fully aware of the agony of Gyasi Ram and members of his family. It
was stated that in view of the reasons stated above, it was not possible
~~~~. D
The learned District and Sessions Judge, Jhansi had, in the
meantime, visited the said convict Gyasi Ram in jail on 22nd May,
1988 and had sent a report to the Inspector General of Prisons stating
"Gyasi's mental state is such that he might commit suicide by hanging
his head on the iron grill of his cell if a decision on his petition is not E
taken soon. If he is to be hanged, it should be done without any delay
or he should be released". The Inspector General's Office further sent
an official to Delhi to expedite the case. Thereafter, this petition was
filed for the condemned prisoner. Gyasi Ram, until the orders of this
. \_ Court passed in these proceedings on the 3rd May, 1989, was kept in
the Death Cell and it is only pursuant to the orders of this Court that F
the prisoner was allowed to stay in the Ordinary Cell during the day
time. The petitioner moved this Court on 11th Apri!, 1989 and the notice
was issued returnable on 19th April, 1989. Time was taken to file
affidavit and the order of this Court dated 3rd May, J.989 was passed.
The matter was adjourned for three months. Affidavits have been filed
but his Mercy Petition still remains undisposed of. The question is: G
what is to be done? This questio'! of delay in these matters has been
examined by this Court from time to time, and how far delay in execu-
tion of death sentence necessitates the commutation of the death sen-
tence or release of the condemned prisoner, has been a matter of some
controversy and debate. In T. V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu,
(1983] 2 SCR 348, a bench of two learned Judges considered this H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1989] 3 S.C.R.

A aspect. Speaking for this Court, Chinnappa Reddy, J. stated in that
decision that Article 21 of the Constitution enjoins that any procedure,
which deprives a person of his life or liberty must be just, fair and
reasonable. It implies humane conditions of detention, preventive or
punitive. 'Procedure established by law' does not end with the pro-
nouncement of sentence; it includes the carrying out of sentence. Pro-
B longed detention to await the execution of a sentence of death is an
1t unjust, unfair and unreasonable procedure and the only way to undo
the wrong is to quash the sentence of death. Reddy, J. was of the view
that the sentence of death is one thing; sentence of death followed by
lengthy imprisonment prior to execution is another. A period of )'
anguish and suffering is an inevitable consequence of sentence of •
c death, but a prolongation of it beyond the time necessary for appeal
and consideration of reprieve is not. And it was no answer to say that
the man would struggle to stay alive. It was, therefore, found in that
case that a delay exceeding two years in the execution of a sentence of
death should be considered sufficient to entitle the person under sen-
tence of death to invoke Article 21 and demand the quashing of the
D sentence of death. This Court did so and substituted the sentence of
imprisonment in that case. That decision was rendered on 16th
February, 1983. The validity of that decision did not last long. On 24th
March, 1983, in Sher Singh & Ors. v. The State of Punjab, [1983] 2
SCR 582, a bench of three learned Judges of this Court held that the
prolonged delay in the execution of a death sentence is unquestionably
an important consideration for determining whether the sentence
should be allowed to be executed. But no hard and fast rule that 'delay
exceeding two years in the execution of a sentence of death should be
considered sufficient to entitle the persona under sentence of death to
invoke Article 21 and demand the quashing of the sentence of death'
can be laid down as has been done in Vatheeswaran's case (supra). It is
f not necessary, therefore, to go into the aspect of this matter any more.
Chief Justice Chandrachud observed that a self imposed rule should be
followed by the executive authority rigorously that every mercy peti-
tion should be disposed of within a period of three months from the
date on which it was received. Long and interminable delay in the
disposal of these petitions, it was observed, are serious hurdles in the
G dispensation of justice and indeed, such delays tend to shake the confi-
dence of the people in the very system of justice. The learned Chief
Justice stated that undoubtedly, the executive has the power, in
appropriate cases, to act under the aforesaid provisions but, all exer-
cise of power is preconditioned by the duty to be fair and quick. Delay
defeats justice, it was observed. In this background, we have to con-
H sider the reasons given in the affidavit in this case. We have set out the
~··.

MAOHU MEHTA v. U.0.1. [MUKHARJI, J.J 781
J reasons advanced on behalf of the Government. They are self A
explanatory. These do not, in our.opinion, indicate any justifiable
ground for keeping the Mercy Petitions of Daya Ram and Gyasi Ram
pending for such a long time. Indeed.• it is not disputed from the
affidavit of the Under Secretary, Minisry of Home Affairs, Govern-
ment of India that in the half-yearly return dated 8th October, 1985
and thereafter in the successive half-yearly returns of. the Uttar B '
Pradesh Government upto 16th January, 1989 year after year, the
Mercy Petitions of Daya Ram remained unattended and undisposed of
I and consequently the Mercy Petition made to the President of India by
\ .Gyasi Ram was also undisposed. The time and the manner in which
the Mercy Petition has been dealt with in this case in respect of Gyasi
Ram make sad reading and speak of the deplorable lack of speed and C
> promptitude which in these matters should be there. In the meantime,
there is no denying the fact that Gyasi Ram has suffered a great deal of
mental pain and agony. His condition has been described by the
learned Sessions Judge as indicated hereinbefore. Whether death sen-
tence is the appropriate punishment for the crime of murder, cold !
blooded in certaip sases, is another debate. This Court in Bachan Singh D
v. State of Punjab,' [1983] 1 SCR 145 at page 221 of the report,
observed as follows:

. "To sum up, the question whether or not death penalty
serves any penological purpose is a difficult, complex and
intractable issue. It has evoked strong, divergent views. E
For the purpose of testing the constitutionality of the im-
pugned provision as to death penalty in Section 302, IPC on
the ground of reasonableness in the light of Articles 19 and
21 of the Constitution,, it is not necessary to express ·any·
categorical opinion, one way or the other, as to which of
these two antithetical views, held by the Abolitionists and F
-· · Retentionists, is correct. It is sufficient to say that the very
··fact that persons of reason, learning and light are rationally
and deeply divided in their opinion,.on this issue, is a
ground among others, for rejecting the petitioners' argu-
ment that retention of death penalty in the impugned pro-
vision is totally devoid of reason and purpose. If, notwith- o·
standing the view of Abolitionists to the contrary, a very
large segment of people, the world over, including ~ocio
logists, legislators, jurists, judges and administrators still
firmly believe in the worth and necessity of capital punish-
ment for the protection of society, if in the perspective of
prevailing crime conditions in India, contemporary public H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R. \-

A opinion GJlannelised through the people's rep~esentatives
in Parliament, has repeatedly in the last three decades,
rejected all attempts, including the Qne made recently, to
abolish or specifically restrict the area of death penalty, if
death penalty is still a recognised legal sanction for murder
or some types of murder in most of the civilised countries in
B the world, if the framers of the Indian Constitution were
fully aware ... of the existence of death penalty as punish-
ment for murder, under the Indian Penal Code, if
Thirty-fifth Report and subsequent reports of the Law · I
Commission suggesting retention of death penalty, and . /
recommending revision of the Criminal Procedure Code
c and the insertion of the new sections 235(2) and 354(3) in ...,I
that Code providing for pre-sentence hearing and sentenc·
ing procedure on conviction for murder and Other capital
offences were before the Parliament and preshmably con-
sidered by it when in 1972-73 it look up revision of the
Code of 1898 and replaced it by the Code of Criminal Pro-
D cedure, 1973, it is not possible to hold that the provision of
death penalty as an alternative punishment tor murder, in
section 302, Penal Code is unreasonable and not in the
public interest. We would, therefore, conclude that the
impugned provision in section 302, violates' neither the
letter nor the ethos of Article 19."
E I

In that decision, Bhagwati, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then
was), dissented. He held that death sentence was bad morally as well
as constitutionally. It is no longer necessary in view of 'the majority
..
judgment to deal with these views in detail. This aspect was examined
in several cases and a bench of five learned Judges considered this I
; .
F question again in Smt. Triveniben V, State of Gujarat, [1989] 1 sec
678, where Oza, J. speaking for the majority analysed the trend and
observed at p. 688 that it was not necessary to go into the' jurispruden-
tial theories of punishment deterrent or retributive in view of what has
been laid down in Bachan Singh's case (supra) with Jhich learned
Judges therein agreed. It is well-settled now that undue long delay in
G execution of the sentence of death would entitle the condemned
person to approach this Court or to be approached under Article 32 of
the Constitution, but this Court would only examine the nature of
delay caused and circumstances that ensued after sentenbe was finally
confirmed by the judicial proces and will have no jurisdiction to
reopen the conclusions reached by the Court while finally maintaining
H the sentence of death. But the court is entitled and indeed obliged to
,-i':

MAOHU MEHTA v. U.0.1. [MUKHARJl, J.l 783

consider the question of inordinate delay in the light of all circums- A
tances of the case to decide whether the execution of sentence should
be carried out or should be altered into imp.isonment for life. No fixed
period of delay can be considered to be decisive. It has been
emphasised that Article 21 is relevant in all stages. Speedy trial in
criminal cases though may not be fundamental right, is implicit in the
broad sweep and content of Article 21. Speedy trial is part of one's B
fundamental right to life and liberty. This principle is no less important
for disposal of mercy petition. It has been universally recognised that a
condemned person has to suffer a degree of mental torture even
~though there is no physical mistreatment and no primitive torture. See
the observations of Shetty, J. in Triveniben 's case (supra) at p. 713-714
of the report, where it has been observed that as between funeral fire c
and mental worry, it is the latter which is more devastating, for funeral
fire burns only the dead body while the mental worry burns the living
one. In the instant case, Gyasi Ram has suffered a great deal of mental
agony for over eight years. It is not disputed that there has been long
delay. We do not find reasons sufficiently commensurate to justify
such long delay. The convict has suffered mental agony of living under D
the shadow of death for long, far too long. He should not suffer that
agony any longer.

In the aforesaid facts and the circumstances of the castl, there-
fore; we direct that the death sentence should not be carried out and
the sentence imposed upon him be altered to imprisonment for life. E
We order accordingly.

This Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.
I '
,. ~-Y.Lal Petition disposed of.
F

/