LexMADHU MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
_A MADHU MEHTA 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 Social worker praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus or an appropriate 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. 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 I ...4., _j . 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. 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 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. 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." 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 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 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. [ 78
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.