REVISED SYNOPSIS - Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar revised synopsis submitted to dr. b. r. ambedkar university

REGISTRATION NUMBER: 303/2017.6108

MERCY PETITION Vis-a-Vis HUMAN RIGHT DISCOURSE:

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE IN INDIA

REVISED SYNOPSIS

SUBMITTED TO

Dr. B. R. AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY

AGRA

FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN

LAW

FACULTY OF LAW

BY

DINESH KUMAR SINGH

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF

Dr. RAKESH KUMAR

AGRA LAW COLLEGE, AGRA

2014-15

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that DINESH KUMAR SINGH is a research scholar in Law,

REGISTRATION NUMBER: 303/2017.6108, session 2014-15, at Faculty of Law,

Agra College, Agra (Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra, U.P.) He has prepared

the Revised Synopsis on the topic titled “MERCY PETITION Vis-a-Vis HUMAN

RIGHTS DISCOURSE: THE CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE IN INDIA”

as per suggestion laid by Research Degree Committee, under my supervision and

guidance. This Ph.D. synopsis has embodied original work of the candidate and has

not been submitted anywhere else for the award of any other Degree or Diploma in

this or any other University or Institute.

I have no objection to guide the candidate on the topic mentioned above.

Head of Department Supervisor

Dr. Piyush Tyagi Dr. Rakesh Kumar

(Associate Professor) (Associate Professor)

Faculty of Law, Agra College, Agra Faculty of Law, Agra College, Agra

(Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, Agra) (Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, Agra)

DECLARATION

I, DINESH KUMAR SINGH declare that the work embodied in this Ph.D.

synopsis is my own bonafide work carried out by me under the supervision of

Dr. RAKESH KUMAR (Assistant Professor), Faculty of Law, Agra College,

Agra (Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra, U.P.) Session 2014-15. The

content embodied in this Ph.D. synopsis has not been submitted previously for

the award of any Degree or Diploma in this or any other University or Institute.

I also declare that I have adhered to all principles of academic honesty and

integrity and have not misrepresented or fabricated or falsified any idea in my

synopsis where other ideas or words have been included; I have adequately

cited and referenced the original sources.

Date: 24-03-2018

Place: Agra

Candidate Signature

1

If we simply use the term “mercy” to refer to certain of the

demands of justice (e.g., the demand for individuation),

then mercy ceases to be an autonomous virtue and instead

becomes part of … justice. It thus becomes obligatory,

and all the talk about gifts, act of grace, supererogation,

and compassion becomes quite beside the point. If, on the

other hand, mercy is totally different from justice and

actually requires (or permits) that justice sometimes be set

aside, it then counsels injustice. In shorts, mercy is either a

vice (injustice) or redundant part of justice.

- Jeffrie G. Murphy

The genesis of Mercy petition directly or indirectly lies in the very basic and spiritual right

i.e. Right of life and personal liberty under the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The law

is absolute senses implies that the person‟s right to life can only be taken away by a proper

process of law. The need of filling Mercy petition is come in to the picture when the accused

is under the award of death penalty. 1

INTRODUCTION:

The basic principle of natural justice is he who seeks equity must do equity. It means justice

should be delivered to those who come to seek justice with clean hands. Generally mercy

petition is the last option for condemned prisoners. In our constitutional scheme, the president

has been conferred power under article 72 to grant pardon and to suspend, remit or commute

sentences in certain cases, including in those matter where the sentence is death penalty. This

power is independent of judiciary and “essential attribute of sovereign power”. 1 Under

Article 72 and 161 under which the President or the governor, as the case may be, can grant

2

pardons, reprieves, respites or remission of punishment or suspend, remit or commute the

sentence of any person convicted of any offences and as will be seen hereinafter, the

President has exercised power under Article 72 in large number of cases for commutation of

death sentence of death sentence in to life imprisonment except when the accused was found

guilty of committing gruesome and/or socially abhorrent crime. The Constitution of India

proclaims in Art. 21 that person shall be deprived of his life except according to procedure

established by law. It implies that everyone has right to live freely and develop his life with

maximum possible efforts and live with human dignity. But when anyone commits crime of

such nature for which the punishment prescribed is death penalty and after the trial he found

guilty of that offence and sentenced to death penalty, he cannot claim this right to life under

Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court in Mithu Vs. State of Punjab 1983, AIR 473, 1983 SCR (2) 690 struck

down section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides for mandatory death punishment

for offenders serving life sentences. The capital punishment is not always followed by

executions, because of possibility of commutation to life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court‟s January 21 order came in the case of Shatrughan Chauhan and Another

Vs. Union of India and Others, 2014 (1) SCALE 437, The Supreme Court, in February 2014,

asked the government to include delay as a criterion in deciding the mercy petition of a death

row convict. The Court said that “the clemency procedure “provides a ray of hope” to the

condemned prisoners and their family members for commutation of death sentence to life

imprisonment. Therefore, the executive should step up and exercise its time-honoured

tradition of clemency power guaranteed in the constitution one way or the other within a

reasonable time.”

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with

reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in Universal Declaration of

Human Rights Declaration (UDHR) without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,

language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other

status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or

international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be

independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Everyone

http://blog.mylaw.net/delay-in-deciding-mercy-petitions-as-a-ground-for-commutation-did-the-judiciary-exceed-its-brief/Shatrughan%2520Chauhan%2520and%2520Another%2520v.%2520Union%2520of%2520India%2520and%2520Others http://blog.mylaw.net/delay-in-deciding-mercy-petitions-as-a-ground-for-commutation-did-the-judiciary-exceed-its-brief/Shatrughan%2520Chauhan%2520and%2520Another%2520v.%2520Union%2520of%2520India%2520and%2520Others http://blog.mylaw.net/delay-in-deciding-mercy-petitions-as-a-ground-for-commutation-did-the-judiciary-exceed-its-brief/Shatrughan%2520Chauhan%2520and%2520Another%2520v.%2520Union%2520of%2520India%2520and%2520Others

3

has the right to life, liberty and security of person. However, in Indian Criminal law &

Constitutional law so many safeguards have been provided to eliminate any possibility of

miscarriage of justice for example in case of death offence, The death sentence is awarded in

rarest of rare cases only. But, in justice delivery system, there are also violations of Human

Rights when the authority exercises its power at its discretion arbitrarily without observing

the restrictions material situations etc. Mercy petition is to be taken as Human rights before

the supreme authority either constitutional or otherwise as the case may be through the

supreme law of the land. Hence, in the proposed thesis, Some measures are to be examined in

the light of constitutionality historically and at present case to case scenario and what kind of

actions could be taken or identified as a guidelines etc. while considering the rights of the

victim(s) as well as accused(s) as a Rule of law in the disposed of Mercy Petitions. Death

penalty is a debatable international topic and every country stands with different opinion in

this context. It has been banned in various countries where as, it is regarded as panacea to the

persistent threat to the society. United Nations prohibits death penalty in all of its forms

declaring it as barbarous and inhuman. India is party to UN conventions but it has always

vo