The Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified that the decision to commute the death sentence of the accused in the Tandoor murder case delivered recently will not be a precedent to decide cases of death row convicts seeking similar treatment on account of delay to decide their mercy petitions.
Drawing a distinction between the two sets of cases, Chief Justice P Sathasivam, who heads a three-judge bench to decide the fate of death row convicts whose mercy petitions were rejected after long delay, said, “Here we are dealing with delay in disposal of mercy petitions. It is not about sentencing.”
The Court felt the need to clarify its stand after it came across an interview given by a leading lawyer in Supreme Court who compared the life sentence handed to Tandoor murder accused Sushil Sharma as being the norm to be followed in similar cases.
“We want to clarify that chapter is over. We heard the member of the bar in an interview saying that the principle enunciated in Tandoor case should be applied in all these cases too. It is not correct.”
The Court proceeded with hearing of the appeals where the convicts on death row either on their own behalf or through NGO Peoples Union for Democratic Rights argued that for years together their mercy petition was kept pending. After a long delay, when it was finally decided by either the Governor or President, the decision was never communicated to the death row prisoners or their family members.
Taking note of this state of affairs, the bench, also comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and SK Singh said, “We can’t treat a confined death row prisoner like any other citizen. After rejection of mercy plea, State has to apprise him of the decision.” As senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, acting as amicus curiae in the matter, took the judges through the lapses on part of the state and Central government, the bench failed to find any justification to explain the cause for states not to forward communications received from Governor for months and years together.