The Hindu : National : Mercy petitions: court rejects PIL for norms

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Feb 23, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

National

National

Mercy petitions: court rejects PIL for norms

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed at the admission stage a public interest litigation petition for a direction to the Centre to fix norms and guidelines for time-bound disposal of mercy petitions from those sentenced to death in heinous crimes.

A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, and Justices R.V. Raveendran and Markandey Katju rejected the PIL filed by Lashkar-e-Hind, an NGO, and Ishwar Prasad G. Khandelwal of Thane in Maharashtra.

The petitioners submitted that the PIL raised important constitutional points on the powers of the President under Article 72 of the Constitution “to grant pardons, etc., and to suspend, remit or commute sentence in certain cases.”

“The important issue deals with the sentence of death passed and confirmed finally under the law in the case of Afzal Mohammed Guru, an Indian national, who for the last two years is sentenced to death but, is still confined in Tihar Jail of Delhi.”

They said: “The Constitution is silent and no other statutory provision exists providing to the President and his government any rules or procedures under which the President can exercise his authority vide Article 72 of the Constitution. It is not beyond public knowledge that some vested interests of political or communal characters are acting for ulterior reasons to become impediments in the execution or implementation of the order of the Supreme Court which is contrary to our Constitution.”

They contended that there was really no laid down procedure ever established by law under which the President and the government of the day through its Council of Ministers must act because of lack of guidelines. They submitted that a person found guilty in terms of the present policy of rarest of rare cases “deserves death on the conclusion of considering every alternative.”

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National