A historic decision by India's Supreme Court commuting the death sentences of 15 prisoners and setting out guidelines to safeguard the rights of prisoners on death row and their families is a positive step for human rights in the country, Amnesty International India said today.

The Supreme Court commuted the death sentences of Suresh, Ramji, Bilavendran, Simon, Gnanprakasham, Meesekar Madaiah, Praveen Kumar, Gurmeet Singh, Sonia Chaudhury, Sanjeev Chaudhury, Jafar Ali, Shivu and Jadeswamy, on the ground of delay in the disposal of their mercy petitions by the President ranging between 5 and 12 years.

The Court commuted the death sentences of Sundar Singh and Magan Lal Barela on the ground that they suffer from mental illness.

"While acknowledging the need to strike a balance between the rights of the accused as well as the victims, this momentous decision reaffirms the rights guaranteed to death row prisoners under the Constitution of India and international law and standards" said G Ananthapadmanabhan, Chief Executive, Amnesty International India.

"The verdict places a strong emphasis on the human rights of all persons, and should steer the country towards completely doing away with the death penalty."

Yug Mohit Chaudhry, one of the lawyers representing prisoners affected by the decision, told Amnesty International India, "This judgment is a tribute to Indian constitutional values and the independence of the judiciary. It recognizes that death row prisoners have rights that the court will protect."

In its judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that "undue, inordinate and unreasonable delay in execution of death sentence [amounts to] torture" and was a ground for commutation of sentence. Importantly, the Court ruled to be bad law a previous decision in the case of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, which stated that prisoners convicted of terrorism-related offences could not appeal for commutation on grounds of inordinate delay.

Quoting extensively from international treaties and standards, the court stated that the execution of people suffering from mental illness would be unconstitutional. It ruled that "insanity" or mental illness would be a factor that warranted commutation of a death sentence. The Court also reiterated that solitary confinement of a prisoner on death row was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court also laid down guidelines on the treatment of people under sentence of death, in a move that could end the trend towards secrecy in executions in 2012 and 2013. According to the guidelines, prisoners on death row should receive legal aid, be informed about the rejection of their mercy petitions and in writing, have their mental and physical conditions regularly checked and be allowed to meet their family members before execution, which should not happen before 2 weeks from the communication of the rejection of the mercy petition.

The Court's ruling is likely to affect the cases of at least 6 other prisoners on death row - Murugan, Santhan, Arivu (aka Perarivalan), Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, Saibanna Natikar and B A Umesh, who are also seeking commutation on the grounds of delay in the disposal of their mercy petitions.

"This verdict provides an opportunity for India to rethink its use of the death penalty," said G Ananthapadmanabhan.

"The death penalty has not been shown to have any particular deterrent effect. UN experts and bodies, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, have said that suggestions that the death penalty has a meaningful deterrent effect have been overstated.

"Research by Amnesty International and the People's Union for Civil Liberties into India Supreme Court judgements on the death penalty has also revealed that the imposition of death sentences in India is highly arbitrary, and disproportionately affects those with little wealth or influence.

"The death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights. While today's verdict is welcome, it does not do away with this cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The government must carry forward the impetus the ruling has provided to place a moratorium on all executions and abolish the death penalty altogether."

Source: Amnesty International, January 22, 2014

SC gives 14 days' buffer to death row convicts

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed all prison authorities to give a gap of 14 days between intimation of rejection of mercy petition to the condemned prisoner and his actual execution to allow him to prepare mentally to make peace with god, prepare his will and meet family and friends one last time.

It also was critical of the practice in certain jails to put a person in solitary confinement immediately after the trial court awarded death penalty after conviction and said a condemned prisoner could be put alone in a single cell only in the last 14 days of his life and not before that.

A bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam found that some prison manuals did not provide for any minimum period between the President's decision to reject a mercy petition being communicated to the condemned prisoner and his family members and the actual date of his execution. "Some prison manuals have a minimum period of one day while others have 14 days," it said.

It said there was a need to provide a minimum gap of 14 days between receipt of communication of rejection of mercy petition and scheduled execution as it would allow the condemned prisoner -

* to prepare himself mentally for execution, to make peace with god, prepare his will and settle other earthly affairs

* to have a last and final meeting with his family members who might have to travel long distance

* to allow him to seek judicial redress of grievances against rejection of mercy plea.

The CJI-headed bench was peeved that the apex court's direction for prison reforms, given in Sunil Batra case more than 35 years ago, were yet to be implemented.

The bench said, "This court in Sunil Batra case had held that solitary confinement or single cell confinement prior to rejection of the mercy petition by the President is unconstitutional. Almost all the prison manuals of the states provide necessary rules governing the confinement of death convicts. These rules should not be interpreted to run counter to the above ruling and violate Article 21."

The court also found that condemned prisoners could seldom afford legal assistance and their grievances almost never reached the judiciary for redress.

"Since this court has held that Article 21 (right to life) rights inhere in a convict till his last breath, even after rejection of the mercy petition by the President, the convict can approach a writ court (high court or the Supreme Court) for commutation of the death sentence on the ground of supervening events, if available, and challenge the rejection of mercy petition and legal aid should be provided at all stages," the bench said.

"Accordingly, superintendents of jails are directed to intimate the rejection of mercy petitions to the nearest Legal Aid Centre apart from informing the convicts." It said.

Source: The Times of India, January 22, 2014