Home       Top Rated       Submit Article     Advanced Search     FAQ       Contact Us       Lawyers in India       Law Forum     RSS Feeds     

Register your Copyright Online

We offer copyright registration right from your desktop click here for details.

Latest Articles | Articles 2014 | Articles 2013 | Articles 2012 | Articles 2011 | Articles 2010 | Articles 2009 | Articles 2008 | Articles 2007 | Articles 2006 | Articles 2000-05

Search On:Laws in IndiaLawyers Search

Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi
We provide fast, cost effective and Hassle free solution.
Contact us at Ph no: 9650499965 (Divorce Law Firm Delhi)
File Caveat in Supreme Court
Contact Ph no: +9650499965

Main Categories
 Accident Law
 Animal Laws
 Arbitration
 Aviation Law
 Banking and Finance laws
 Case Laws
 Civil Laws
 Company Law
 Constitutional Law
 Consumer laws
 Contracts laws
 Criminal law
 Drug laws
 Dubai laws
 Educational laws
 Employment / Labour laws
 Environmental Law
 family law
 Gay laws and Third Gender
 Human Rights laws
 Immigration laws
 Insurance / Accident Claim
 Intellectual Property
 International Law
 Juvenile Laws
 Law - lawyers & legal Profession
 Legal Aid and Lok Adalat
 Legal outsourcing
 Media laws
 Medico legal
 Miscellaneous
 Real estate laws
 Right To Information
 Tax Laws
 Torts Law
 Woman Issues
 Workplace Equality & Non-Discrimination
 Yet Another Category

More Options
 Most read articles
 Most rated articles

Subscription
Subscribe now and receive free articles and updates instantly.

Name
Email




Published : April 12, 2016 | Author : Prashanti
Category : Criminal law | Total Views : 1881 | Rating :

  
Prashanti
Miss. Prashanti Upadhyay ,LL.M, Student, Law College Dehradun, Arcadia Grant P.O. Chandanwari, Premnagar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand- 248007
 

The philosophy underlying the Mercy Petition Boon or Bane

Mercy Petition lies in saving an innocent person from being punished due to miscarriage of justice or in cases of doubtful conviction. The hope of being pardoned itself serves as an incentive for the convict to behave himself in the prison institution and thus, helps considerably in solving the issue of prison discipline also. The concept of Mercy Petition is followed in many nations like USA, UK, Canada etc. including India.

In India, the power to grant pardon is entrusted to the President and the Governors of various states under Article 72 and Article 161 of the Constitution. It adds a human touch to the country’s judicial process by conferring powers to grant pardon or show Mercy to criminals sentenced to death. They can review the applications without having to view it from a legal angle like that of legal experts who base their opinions solely on the basis of available evidence and the testimony of witnesses.

There is no time limit given in these two Articles of the Constitution of India for Mercy Plea. These Articles have no binding effect on the President and the Governors of the states to accept all the Mercy Petitions.
The courts of civilized states have recognized and acknowledged that a prolonged delay in executing a death sentence can make the punishment inhuman and degrading. The protracted anguish of alternating between hope and despair, the agony of uncertainty, the consequences of such suffering on the mental, emotional and physical integrity and health of not only the convict but also his family should not be allowed in civilized societies.

The Supreme Court in Ranga Billa Case called upon to decide the nature and ambit of the pardoning power of the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution. In this case, death sentence of one of the appellants was confirmed by the Supreme Court. His Mercy Petition was also rejected by the President. Then the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court challenging the discretion of the President to grant pardon on the ground that no reasons were given for rejection of his “Mercy Petition”. The court dismissed the Petition and observed that it is entirely a discretionary remedy and grant or rejection of it need not be reasoned. Again, Supreme Court in Kehar Singh v. Union of India [1989 (1) SCC 204] reiterated its earlier stand and held that the grant of pardon by the President is an act of grace and therefore, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The power exercisable by the President being exclusively of administrative nature is not justifiable.

It is a misnomer to describe the Petitions made to the President and Governors under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution by convicted persons as Mercy Petitions. The Constitution confers a right on such convicts and a duty on the Presidents and Governors (in reality the respective government) to duly consider the Petitions and take action on them expeditiously. Keeping such Petitions pending for an inordinately long period, the government seems to be totally ignorant of its obligations in law and of the human aspect of the suffering of persons on death row. It treats them as if they are standing in a queue for rations.

After careful sifting, the Supreme Court shifted its earlier stand in 1983 in the Sher Singh case and in categorical and unequivocal terms fixed a sort of deadline of 3 months on respective governments for disposal of Petitions filed under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution or under Sections 432 and 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Afzal Guru, convicted for his role in the 2001 terrorist attack on Parliament, had been on death row after his appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on August 5, 2005. His execution, due on October 20, 2006, was stayed by the government because a Clemency Petition was filed by his family to the President. Afzal Guru suffered in solitary isolation, not knowing whether he would be executed or not. The agony of his family must not be any less. On 3rd February 2013, his Mercy plea was rejected by the President of India, Pranab Mukherjee and he was secretly hanged at Delhi’s Tihar Jail on 9th February 2013 and afterward buried inside jail grounds in Operation Three Star.

Yakub Memon convicted and awarded death sentence for conspiracy through financing the Mumbai serial blasts in 1993 which left 257 dead and 713 people wounded had preferred and exhausted a long channel of various legal and constitutional remedies like Review Petition, Writ Petition before the Supreme Court, Mercy Plea before the President, Curative Petition before the Supreme Court, Mercy Plea before the Governor of Maharashtra, Mercy Plea before Maharashtra Chief Minister seeking stay on his execution stated for 30 July 2015 as the date for hanging, where ultimately he was hanged on the stipulated date after exhausting all these remedial measures.

Under a landmark ruling in January 2014, the Supreme Court has humanized the way the state deals with death row convicts whereby a convict cannot be executed for 14 days after the rejection of his Clemency plea as giving 14-day notice for execution “allows the prisoner to prepare himself mentally for execution, to make his peace with God, prepare his will and settle other earthly affairs. It allows the prisoner to have a last and final meeting with his family members. It is the obligation of the Superintendent of Jail to see that the family members of the convict receive the message of communication of rejection of the Mercy Petition in time.”

Conclusion
To conclude, pardoning power of executive is very significant as it corrects the errors of judiciary. It eliminates the effect of conviction without addressing the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Mercy Petition’s timely disposal may prove to be a boon and in the interest of society and the convict considering the period of imprisonment undergone, seriousness of the offence, age of the prisoner, the health of the prisoner, good prison record, remorse and atonement, deference to public opinion etc. Else, it is a bane.




1 2 3 4 5
Rate this article!     Poor
Excellent    

Most viewed articles in Criminal law category
• The Power of The Magistrate Under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C
• The Elements and Stages of a Crime
• Dying Declaration-Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act
• Confession under Indian Evidence Act
• Duty of The Public Prosecutor In The Criminal Justice System
• Rape Laws In India-Appropriate or not?
• Change in definition of Rape in India
• Whether Section 324 Of IPC Is Bailable Or Non-Bailable
• Experts Opinion and its admissibility and relevancy - Law of Evidence
• Anti - terrorism laws in India
• Section 91(1) CrPc: An analysis of Constitutional Validity
• Mens Rea in Statutory Offences
• Need on capital punishment in the context of rape
• Common Intention And Common Object Under The Indian Penal Code 1860
• Secondary Evidence
• Right To Anticipatory Bail
Most recent articles in Criminal law category
• is rope an answer for crime?
• Formation of Special Courts in Rape Cases for Speedy Trial: A Necessity
• Quash 498a -Vague allegations in Fir
• Quashing of False FIR registered under 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code
• Unsophisticated Arena of Criminal Investigation: Loopholes and Repercussions
• Terrorist and their Tactics:-Need of Creative Criminology
• How a Defendant Grand Jury Testimony Can Be Used at Trial
• Yakubs Death Punishment
• Framing of a Law or Enforcement of a Law
• Compensation: A Ray of Hope
• Evidential Value of Private Reports in Court of Law
• Intention an Integral Part of Crime
• Nature and Scope of Plea Bargaining
• Mercy Petition Boon or Bane
• 125 CrPC-Scope of Revision
• Consequences of Prolonged Delays in Rape Trial

Article Comments

there are no comments...


Welcome!
Please login or register a new free account.

Random Pick
The article analyses the interpretation of the word ‘Company’ under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The article also studies the response of the judiciary while interpreting the word Company....

Statistics
» Total Articles
1479
» Total Authors
4390
» Total Views
18847789
» Total categories
41

Law Forum


Legal Articles

Lawyers in India- Click on a link below for legal Services

lawyers in Chennai
lawyers in Bangalore
lawyers in Hyderabad
lawyers in Cochin
lawyers in Pondicherry
lawyers in Guwahati
lawyers in Nashik

lawyers in Jaipur
lawyers in New Delhi
lawyers in Dimapur
lawyers in Agra
Noida lawyers
lawyers in Siliguri

For Mutual consent Divorce in Delhi

Ph no: 9650499965
For online Copyright Registration

Ph no: 9891244487
Law Articles

lawyers in Delhi
lawyers in Chandigarh
lawyers in Allahabad
lawyers in Lucknow
lawyers in Jodhpur
Faridabad lawyers

lawyers in Mumbai
lawyers in Pune
lawyers in Nagpur
lawyers in Ahmedabad
lawyers in Surat
Ghaziabad lawyers

lawyers in Kolkata
lawyers in Janjgir
lawyers in Rajkot
lawyers in Indore
lawyers in Ludhiana
Gurgaon lawyers

TOP

India's Most Trusted Online law library
Legal Services India is Copyrighted under the Registrar of Copyright Act ( Govt of India) © 2000-2017
 ISBN No: 978-81-928510-1-3