Mercy Petitions And Constitutional Accountability In Capital Punishments
- IJLLR Journal
- 7 days ago
- 2 min read
Disha, LL.M., University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU
ABSTRACT
In India, the death penalty provision is a complicated constitutional framework that attempts to balance the power of the state to carry out capital punishment with Article 21 of the constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Many research has been conducted to examine the manner in which capital punishment should be carried out, but less attention has been paid to the procedures that have been followed post-sentencing, particularly the power of the President and the Governor under Articles 72 and 161 to grant mercy to the convict. Even after the confirmation of the death penalty by the judicial system, death row convicts are subjected to prolonged incarceration, which leads to continuous mental and psychological suffering, thus raising serious concerns about human dignity and procedural fairness.
This research paper demonstrates that excessive and unexplained delays in the processing and disposal of mercy petitions amount to a violation of Article 21 by making the death penalty a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. The study points to the flaws and inefficiencies in the executive machinery by conducting a doctrinal analysis of constitutional provisions, statutory frameworks, and landmark court rulings, especially State of Maharashtra v. Pradeep Yashwanth Kokade. Moreover, this paper looks into the evolving judicial viewpoint regarding the executive's accountability to the death penalty.
The paper argues that the constitutional validity of capital punishment is contingent not only on judicial scrutiny at the sentencing stage but also on the fairness and timeliness of executive action thereafter. It concludes with a proposal for the reforms of the policy and institutions that would ensure transparency, accountability, and the humane treatment of the post- sentencing process so that delay would not be a factor diminishing the constitutional promise of dignity under Article 21.
