Instances of President's delay in commuting death sentences has come under public debate as denial of…

Question

Instances of President's delay in commuting death sentences has come under public debate as denial of justice. Should there be a time limit specified for the President to accept/reject such petitions? Analyze.

Ghissu Editorial · Accepted Answer

A rigid constitutional deadline for mercy petitions is unwise, but an outer limit per executive stage, with recorded reasons, should be set in Home Ministry rules. Shatrughan Chauhan (2014) commuted 13 death sentences because unexplained delay in deciding petitions under Article 72 violated Article 21.

**Introduction**

In Shatrughan Chauhan (2014), the Supreme Court commuted 13 death sentences because mercy petitions under Article 72 lay undecided for years. Delay punishes the convict twice and denies victims closure, raising whether the President needs a deadline.

**Why Delay Becomes a Denial of Justice**

SKETCH: flow | Where Mercy Petitions Stall
- SC final verdict
- Governor, Art 161
- MHA advice
- President, Art 72
- 14-day notice
- Execution

1. **Executive delay**: The President acts on Home Ministry advice (Maru Ram, 1980), so files idle; Rajiv Gandhi's assassins waited about eleven years.
2. **Article 21 violated**: Triveniben (1989) held that prolonged delay can make execution unjust, and V. Sriharan (2014) commuted those sentences.
3. **Arbitrariness**: Afzal Guru's petition waited from 2006 to 2013, and his family learnt of the rejection only after the execution, offending Article 14.
4. **Victims too**: Indefinite pendency erodes faith in the criminal process and denies families a final answer.

**Should a Time Limit Be Specified**

1. **For a deadline**: It would end the "death row phenomenon" and make the Shatrughan Chauhan safeguards, such as a 14-day gap before execution, binding.
2. **Against rigidity**: Article 72 is a plenary power of grace, and Kehar Singh (1989) let the President re-examine the whole record.
3. **Separation of powers**: The November 2025 Presidential Reference opinion refused judicial timelines on assent, signalling restraint on clemency too.
4. **Speed is possible**: The Nirbhaya convicts' petitions were decided within days in 2020.

**Conclusion**

A rigid constitutional deadline is unwise, but an outer limit of about three months per executive stage, with recorded reasons, should be fixed in Home Ministry rules, honouring Article 21 without diluting the President's discretion.

Instances of President's delay in commuting death sentences has come under public debate as denial of justice. Should there be a time limit specified for the President to accept/reject such petitions? Analyze.

Model answer

Practise this question

Union Executive — President, VP, PM, Ministries & Departments3 questions

Ghissu