DAMODARAM SANJIVIYYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY
SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P,INDIA

PROJECT TITLE- POWER TO COMMUTE SENTENCE

SUBJECT- CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

NAME OF THE STUDENT: P MEGHNA SRINIVAS

ROLL NO.2019109

4THSEMESTER

1
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I w0uld like t0 express my gratitude and heartfelt appreciati0n t0 my teacherwh0 gave me the g0lden
0pp0rtunity t0 d0 this w0nderful pr0ject 0n the interesting t0pic “POWER TO COMMUTE SENTENCE”
which helped me learn, analyse and expl0re this specific field 0f subject by digging deeper int0 the never
ending mine 0f kn0wledge thr0ugh an extensive and th0r0ugh research.This topic has helped me understand
the subject better and has given me a sense of clarity on the subject.

Sec0ndly, I w0uld als0 like t0 thank my family wh0 helped me a l0t in c0mpleting this pr0ject successfully
within the given time frame.Lastly, the acknowledgement would be incomplete without appreciation to my
seniors who guided me and showed me the right path in finishing the task of completing the project
successfully.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION TO COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE

2. LEGAL PROVISONS AND POWER TO COMMUTE SENTENCE

3. IMPORTANT CASE LAWS AND IT’S ANALYSIS

4. DELAY OF DEICIDING IN MERCY PETTIONS GROUND FOR

COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE: SHATRAGUN CHAUHAN & ANR V. UNION
OF INDIA

5. CONCLUSION

6. BIBLIOGRPAHY
 ABSTRACT

commuting sentence basically means reduction in punishment, in other words it lessens the prisoner’s
sentence.The power to commute sentence is a power vested in the appropriate government under section 433
of criminal procedural code. There are no limitations on the government's ability to commute a sentence,
even though it is just a fine. In an appropriate situation, the appropriate government has the right to
commutate the sentence under Section 433 of the CrPC. Commutation is possible for a variety of sentences,
including death sentences (mercy plea).The topic of commuting a death penalty has always been
contentious; it raises concerns about the accused's fundamental human rights and, on the other hand, the
effect of a serious crime on society. The government has the right under Section 433 of the CrPC to
commute a death sentence to a lesser penalty. The power to commute is also given under article 71 and 161
of the Indian constitution.
 SYNOPSIS

INTRODUCTION: commuting sentence basically means reduction in punishment, in other words it

lessens the prisoner’s sentence. Now this power in vested in the appropriate government to commute a
sentence of a prisoner. Section 433 of crpc talks about the power to commute a sentence. Article 71 and 161
of the Indian constitution also talks about the power to commute sentence.
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY: to know the issues and concerns of vagueness of law and how to interpret

SCOPE OF STUDY: the study is limited to the issues and concerns of vagueness in law and the
interpretations

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY:to know how the issues and concerns can be rectified

LITERATURE REVIEW:The researcher has collected relevant information from various primary and
secondary sources.
BOOKS- CRIMNAL PROCEDURAL LAW 1973, BARE ACT, The Indian constitution
ARTICLES- Commutation of Death Sentence and Life Imprisonment By Shreya Sahoo( this article talks
about the commutation of sentence in criminal law and the procedure to grant pardon)
JOURNALS-‘Court’ of Last Resort A Study of Constitutional Clemency for Capital Crimes in India Bikram
Jeet Batra( It explains in detail what is commutation of sentence, it also sought to examine the operation of
clemency for those sentenced in capital cases in India—in particular the complexity of decision making on
mercy petitions within the government apparatus as also the review of such decisions by the judiciary)
PRIMARY SOURCES : Primary sources that the researcher has relied uponinclude acts passed by the
government, judgements delivered by the judiciary. Judgements taken for reference in the project include:
delhi administration vs manohar lal
Maru ram vs union of India
Shatrughan Chauhan & anr. vs. Union of India & ors

SECONDARY SOURCES: Secondary sources that the researcher has relied uponinclude various books,
articles-‘Court’ of Last Resort A Study of Constitutional Clemency for Capital Crimes in India Bikram Jeet
Batra, Execution, Suspension, Remission And Commutation of Sentences By Mariya Paliwala,
Commutation of Death Sentence and Life Imprisonment By Shreya Sahoo.
web resources like ipleaders,legal services India and legal theory lexion and our legal world.
RESERACH METHODOLGY:The researcher has applied doctrinal method of research to obtain the
relevant information from various primary and secondary sources.
TYPES OF RESEARCH:The research is descriptive, explanatory and analytical in nature.

RESEARCH QUESTION:Whether Section 433A of Crpc would affect Article 72 and Article 161 of the
constitution? And if commutation of sentence is important in achieving justice?

CHAPTERISATION: 1. INTRODCUTION TO COMMUTATION OF DEATH- In this chapter I explain

gave an introduction about the commutation of death
2. LEGAL PROVISIONS AND POWER TO COMMUTATION- in this chapter I have explained about all
the legal provisions that mentions about commutation of death sentence
3. IMPORTANT CASE LAWS- I have discussed about all the important case laws that are related to
commutation of sentence and how they have effected the laws formed today.
4. DELAY AS A GROUND FOR COMMUTATING OF SENTENCE- I this chapter I explained how delay
as a ground for commutation of sentence.
 INTRODUCTION TO COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE

In “the country, there are various constitutional and statutory provisions which suspend, remit or commute
sentences, given to the convict. Under the Indian Constitution, 1950, Article 72 and Article 161 empower
the Governor and the President to grant pardon, suspend, remit or commute the sentence. Meanwhile in the
Criminal Procedural Code, 1973, there is a whole Chapter XXXII dedicated to the suspension, remission and
commutation of sentence. The head of state has the authority to commute, suspend, or remit a sentence. The
executive may show mercy to the prisoner by granting parole, suspension, or commutation of sentence,
among other things. The basic aim of termination, parole, commutation, and other means of showing grace
is to consider those aspects of the case that do not come up during the legal proceedings. This, like the other
CrPC Chapters, applies to the entire country of India.”

Commutation “of a sentence means the process of substituting the sentence provided by a competent with a
lesser or lighter sentence. The head of the state has the supreme authority to exercise the executive power for
granting pardon after taking into account several reasons and circumstances which may not be apposite for
consideration before the courts.

Mercy may take several forms for a convicted individual, including respite, reprieve, remission, pardon, and
commutation. Since the year 2000, 2018 has seen the largest number of death sentences levied by criminal
courts, with 162 in total. In 2018, a legislative extension of capital punishment for non-homicidal offences,
primarily sexual abuse committed on children, was also unprecedented. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court's
decision to commute 11 of the 12 death penalty cases it heard in 2018 was noteworthy. The Indian High
Courts, on the other hand, commuted 36 death sentences out of 58 to various types of life imprisonment.
Deepak Gupta J. had written a significant quote in a recent judgment 1, an individual on death row's last hope
is a mercy petition. Every new day will bring new hope that his mercy petition will be granted. By the time
night falls, this dream has died as well.”

1
Shreya sahoo, commutation of death sentence and life imprisonment, https://www.legalbites.in/commutation-of-death-sentence-
and-life-imprisonment/, last accessed:may 1.5.21.
 POWER TO COMMUTE SENTENCE AND LEGAL PROVISONS

The “framers were wise to give the government the power to commute a death sentence or life
imprisonment, stating that “it is clearly fit that the Government should be allowed to commute the sentence
of death or life imprisonment.”
Many circumstances in which the executive authorities should be fully briefed, but which are often unknown
even to the most capable judges, can, at times, make carrying out a sentence extremely inconvenient.”

Section 433 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

433. Power to commute sentence. The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person
sentenced, commute-2
(a) a sentence of death, for any other punishment provided by the Indian Penal Code;
(b) a sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for fine;
(c) a sentence of rigorous imprisonment, for simple imprisonment for any term to which that person might
have been sentenced, or for fine;
(d) a sentence of simple imprisonment, for fine.
The topic of commuting a death penalty has always been controversial; it raises concerns about the accused's
fundamental human rights and, on the other hand, the effect of a serious crime on society. The government
has the right under Section 433 of the CrPC to commute a death sentence to a lesser penalty.
According to the terms of the CrPC, the majority of death row inmates had their sentences shortened to 14
years of life imprisonment.”

Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases

The “power of the President and Governor is limited under Section 433A of the CrPC, which states that they
cannot commute a death sentence to less than 14 years of life imprisonment. Also after serving 14 years in
jail, the convicts are not released unless an order under Section 51 of the IPC or Section 433A of the CrPC is
issued.3
Furthermore, in the case of a definite term of imprisonment, parole can be given under Section 432 of the
CrPC. The power is to grant an additional period of imprisonment to a prisoner, in addition to the remission
provided by the jail manual or legislative laws. In the case of an indefinite sentence, such as life
imprisonment, the person's sentence can be remitted or suspended, but not on the grounds that the
imprisonment is arbitrary or that it is for twenty years.”

2
Section 433 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

3
Section 433 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Concurrent power of the Central Government in case of death sentences
Under Section 434 of the CrPC, it is stated that the powers under Section 432 and Section 433, which are
given to the State government, can be exercised by the Central government in case of a death sentence.

State government to act after consultation with the Central Government in certain cases
Under “Section 435 of the CrPC it is stated that the power given to the state government to remit or
commutate a sentence in an offence:
>Which is investigated under the Delhi Special Police Establishment or by any other agency which is
constituted under any Central Act other than this Code.
>Which involves misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to any property belonging to the Central
government.
>Which was committed by the person who is working under the Central government and was discharging
his official duty.”

As previously stated, the state government can not discharge such offences without first consulting the
federal government. Furthermore, no state government order of remission, commutation, or suspension shall
occur where the executive authority of the federal government still applies, or where a person's sentence
must serve concurrently. Only where the central government has passed the same sentence with regard to the
subject matter on which the executive authority of the centre applies can such orders take effect.
According to the Law Commission of India's 41st Report, there are some matters in which the centre is
extremely concerned, even though the laws of the state government will apply in those cases. As a result, the
central government must have a say in such matters, and the state government can only act in coordination
with the central government; otherwise, the central government's administration of law and justice would be
extremely difficult.4”

OTHER LEGAL PROVISIONS

It's worth noting that under Section 416 of the CrPC, a pregnant woman's death penalty can be postponed or
even commuted to life imprisonment if the High Court orders it.
Commutation of the death penalty is also provided for in Section 54 of the Indian Penal Code, which states
that the concerned government has been given the authority to commute the death penalty to any other
punishment warranted by the IPC. Commutation of life imprisonment to a period of not more than 14 years
may be performed in compliance with Section 55 of the IPC. The offender's permission is not required under

4
Shreya sahoo, commutation of death sentence and life imprisonment, https://www.legalbites.in/commutation-of-death-sentence-
and-life-imprisonment/, last accessed:may 1.5.21.
the above provisions.It is worthwhile to note that the above mentioned provisions cannot be repudiated or
altered at the behest of any statutory provision.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISONS
The “President and the Governor of India have a great deal of sovereign authority under the Indian
Constitution. The President and the Governor are in charge of the Center and the State, respectively. The
President of India has the right to pardon, remit, suspend, or commute any sentence under Article 72 of the
Indian Constitution.The President has the authority under Article 72 to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or
remissions of punishment, as well as to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of
any crime .Article 72 empowers the President the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions
of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence. 5The
meaning of these terms is as follows:
>Pardon: It removes both the sentence and the conviction and completely absolves the convict from all
sentences, punishments, and disqualifications.
>Commutation: It denotes the substitution of one form of punishment with a lighter form of punishment. For
example, a death sentence may be commuted to rigorous imprisonment.
>Remission: It implies reducing the period of the sentence without changing its character. For example, a
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years may be remitted to rigorous imprisonment for one year.
>Respite: It denotes awarding a lesser sentence in place of one originally awarded due to some special
fact, such as the physical disability of a convict or the pregnancy of a woman offender.
>Reprieve: It implies a stay of the execution of a sentence (especially that of death) for a temporary period.
Its purpose is to enable the convict to have time to seek pardon or commutation from the President.”

In “cases where the punishment is given by the court-martial. The Governor’s power to remit, suspend or
commute the sentence under the laws of the State, shall be given precedence.
>In cases where the power of executive extends.
>In cases where the punishment is a death sentence.”

Similarly, “the Governor of the States has these powers under Article 161 of the Indian Constitution. The
Governor has the authority to pardon, reprieve, or respite a penalty, as well as suspend, remit, or commute a
sentence imposed by the laws of the State, to which the executive power of the State applies.The President's
pardoning power differs from that of the Governor in that the Governor does not have the authority to
commute a death sentence. However, this authority of the President is not absolute and relies on the
consultation with the council of ministers. This is not present in the Constitution but technically this
procedure is followed. Furthermore, the Constitution makes no provision for a system to verify the
legitimacy of the President's and Governor's decisions made when exercising their mercy powers. However,
5
M.P jain , the indian constituion, 8th edition, 2018
in the case of Epuru Sudhakar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 6 a narrow window of opportunity for judicial
review of the President's and Governor's mercy-granting powers is given to rule out some kind of
arbitrariness.In Epuru Sudhakar & Anr vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors,7 it was held by the Supreme Court that it is
a well-set principle that a limited judicial review of exercise of clemency powers is available to the Supreme
Court and High Courts. Granting of clemency by the President or Governor can be challenged on the
following grounds:
 
·         The order has been passed without application of mind.
·         The order is mala fide.
·         The order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations.
·         Relevant material has been kept out of consideration.
·         The order suffers from arbitrariness.
 
Now, it is a well settled principle that power under Articles 72 and 161 is subject to judicial review.”

PURPOSE OF GRANTING PARDON

>In cases of wrongful prosecution or miscarriage of justice, a pardon can be very helpful in preventing an
innocent person from being prosecuted.
>The prospect of being pardoned acts as an incentive for the prisoner to behave well in jail, and thus aids in
the resolution of the prison discipline issue.
>Giving liberty to a convicted criminal is often superior to punishing an innocent person.
>The aim of pardoning power is to correct potential judicial mistakes, since no human system of judicial
administration is without flaws.8

PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING PARDON

>If the accused has not filed an appeal or the Apex court has not given special leave to the accused, it is
either the Apex court or the High court that decides whether or not capital punishment should be imposed.
Following that, a request for a pardon may be filed; in the case of a state, it must be filed for Governor
approval, and in the case of union territories, it must be filed for President approval. [Constitutional Articles
72 and 161].
>When a request for a pardon is made to the Governor and is denied, it must be immediately submitted to
the Secretary of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, to obtain the President's orders.

6
Epuru Sudhakar & Anr vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors
7
Epuru Sudhakar & Anr vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors
8
‘Court’ of Last Resort A Study of Constitutional Clemency for Capital Crimes in India Bikram Jeet Batra
>In the case of Union Territories, a person who has been sentenced to death must send a pardon petition to
the Chief Commissioner, Administrator, or Lieutenant-Governor, who must then forward it to the Secretary
to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, requesting instructions from the President of India.

>The Ministry of Home Affairs provides advice to the President of India on whether or not to recommend
granting a pardon in a case that has been submitted to him, and the President is expected to act in accordance
with that advice.

>When granting a pardon, the court can take into account a variety of other factors related to the sentence,
such as age, mental disability, sex, socio-economic circumstances, and so on.

>The Executive has no authority to offer any justifications or grounds for accepting or rejecting a pardon
request. The President's or Governor's power to grant or deny a pardon is not judicial, and it does not
constitute a violation of the previous judicial order.

>A prisoner can file as many pardon requests as he likes, as long as each plea for pardon includes a
substantive and new ground. The Law Commission of India, in its 35th report, stated that it was not prudent
to enlist an exhaustive list of principles in accordance with which the Executive could commute the
sentence.

The “philosophy behind the pardon power is that every civilised country recognises and has, therefore,
provided for the pardoning power to be exercised as an act of grace and humanity in proper cases; without
such a power of clemency to be exercised by any department or functionary of government, a country would
be most imperfect and deficient in its political morality and in that attributive attribute.
The pardoning power is based on the consideration of the public good and is to be exercised on the grounds
that the public interest, which is the legitimate purpose of all penalties, can be promoted just as well by a
suspension of the sentences as by their execution.9”

To “pardon anyone means to forgive them for their wrongdoing. The term 'pardon' has been described as an
act of grace, emanating from the power vested in the execution of the law, that exempts the person on whom
it is conferred from the punishment inflicted by the law for a crime committed. It has an effect on both the
penalty for the crime and the offender's guilt.10”

9
Commutation of death, https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/commutation-of-death-sentence
Shreya sahoo, commutation of death sentence and life imprisonment, https://www.legalbites.in/commutation-of-death-sentence-
10

and-life-imprisonment/, last accessed:may 1.5.21.

In other words, granting a pardon absolves the accused of his guilt and restores him to his former state of
innocence, as if he had never committed the crime with which he was charged. The President of India and
the Governors of States have the authority under Indian law to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or
remissions of punishment, as well as to suspend, remit, or commute sentences. Articles 72 and 161 of the
Constitution comprise the provisions regulating pardons.
 CASE ANAYSIS OF MARU RAM

The relevant clause relating to the president's mercy authority is Article 161. According to Article 72 of the
constitution, the president has the authority to commute or remit sentences placed on any individual for any
violation of a law relating to a matter to which the Union's executive power extends. Section 433A (added
by the 1978 Amendment Act) limits the power of the appropriate government to commute a term of life
imprisonment imposed on an accused for a specific crime.

FACTS
The “procedural validity of section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was questioned in this
case on the grounds that it violated Article 14, 20(1), 72, and 161 of the Indian Constitution. Both of the
petitions fall into one of two groups. It was argued that this Section merely prevented the government from
issuing an order under Section 432 remitting the entire sentence until the prisoner served at least 14 years in
prison. In this situation, the inmate had not argued for final release without a government order under Article
72 and 161, or Section 432 of the Crpc.”
433-A. “Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases.—Notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for
an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed
on a person has been commuted under Section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not
be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.”11
A reading of the provision shows that under two circumstances a convict has to actually undergo
incarceration for fourteen years. They are:
(i) when life imprisonment is imposed on a person for an offence for which death sentence is an alternate
penalty, and
(ii) when death sentence is imposed by the court on a person and commuted under Section 433(a) to
imprisonment for life.
ISSUES:
Whether Section 433A of Crpc would affect Article 72 and Article 161 of the constitution?
Whether the policy framed under Article 161 for grant of remission override the requirement under Section
433A Crpc?

JUDGEMNET:
In the “Maru Ram case, the Supreme Court held that Section 433-A cannot limit the constitutional power of
the President (Union Council of Ministers) and the Governor of a State (Council of Ministers of a State)
under Articles 72 and 161 to grant complete pardon even before the legislative time specified by Section
11
Section 433A criminal procedural code , 1973
433-A has expired. The relevant government's ability to exercise its powers under Section 432 CrPC is
limited by Section 433-A, but the constitutional power under Articles 72 and 161 is unaffected. When the
operation is based on Section 433 CrPC, the President or Governor, as the case may be, does not need to
approve it, but if the power is based on Article 72 or 161, the President or Governor may approve it. The
President and the Governor are, however, bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers. As a result, when
the provisions of the fundamental law of the land are invoked, the restriction found in Section 433-A may
become a futile exercise.”
The “court ruled that the President's power under Article 72 must be exercised on the advice of the Central
Government, not on his own, and that the government's advice is binding on the President.
Article 161 gives the governor the power to pardon, which is paralleled by Article 72, which gives the
president the power to pardon. It has been also observed that all power including legislative power, should
not be exercised arbitrarily or malafide.In order to save Section 433A from being declared unconstitutional,
the court decided that it would only apply prospectively (the date in which the Section came into force).”
It was also decided that while Section 433A limits the appropriate government's ability to exercise its
powers under Section 432 Crpc, it cannot limit the Constitutional power under Articles 72 and 161 of the
Indian Constitution.
 DELHI ADMINSTRATION VS MANOHAR LAL

BRIEF FACTS:
The Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, found the respondent guilty of an offence under Section 16 read
with Section 7 for violating Section 2 (ia) (a), (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 9.5.2000 in case No.42 of 1994. On 12.5.2000, he was sentenced to
one year of simple jail, as well as a fine of Rs.2000/-, for which he was sentenced to a further month of
simple jail if the fine was not paid.
ISSUE
Whether the claim made for the benefit of section 433(d) of criminal procedure code is valid?
JUDGEMNET
In “terms of sentence, the Appellate Judge considered it impossible to give relief on the grounds that the
power to commute under Section 433 (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code rests with the State Government
and it was not permissible for him to follow the route set forth in 1996 (2) FAC. 187 in the exercise of its
inherent powers by this Court. As a result, the trial court's sentence was likewise confirmed.
Cr.P.C. ion 433 (d) was asserted on behalf of the respondent.”
The “respondent, enraged, filed a revision petition with the High Court in Crl. Revision Petition No.188 of
2001. The respondent's conviction was not appealed to the High Court by the respondent. In terms of the
sentence, referring to the certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, which stated that the colouring
matter did not cause health problems, and relying on this Court's decision reported in 2000 Crl. L. J. 2777, in
which this Court issued a direction to the Government under Section 433 Cr.P.C., with the benefit of Section
433 (d) Cr.P.C.Taking into account the foregoing, as well as the concession allegedly made by the State's
counsel, the learned Judge in the High Court felt persuaded to grant the benefit of commutation of sentence,
as contemplated by Section 433 (d) Cr.P.C., and directed the respondent to deposit Rs.20,000/- as a fine in
commutation of the sentence of imprisonment in the trial court, and to notify the Government of the same. It
was further ruled that the sentence of jail imposed be suspended upon payment of the fine amount.The
learned Solicitor General for the appellant argued that the High Court could not order a reduction of the
sentence once the respondent's conviction had been sustained and no jurisdictional or other error in the
punishment imposed had been identified. It has been argued, based on a decision of this Court in State of
Punjab vs. Kesar Singh [1996 (5) SCC 495], that the power under Section 433 Cr.P.C. must be exercised by
the State Government in its discretion, and that it is not for the High Court to issue a commutation order and
direct the State Government to formalise the same on deposit of the fine amount specified by the
commutation order. The learned Solicitor General also argued that Food Adulteration is a societal evil, and
that when the government has required a minimum term for a certain infraction in light of this, it would not
be proper to order commuting, thereby circumventing the legislative objective.” Orders of this sort, which
have been passed in significant numbers in New Delhi and across the country, are believed to be obstructing
the efficient enforcement of the Act's provisions to combat social evil, with further societal repercussions.
Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent with equal force and vehemence
contended that once the so-called adulteration was considered to be not injurious to health, there is nothing
illegal in the course adopted by the High Court, and following the earlier decisions of this Court reported
in N. Sukumaran Nair vs. Food Inspector, Mavelikara [1997 (9) SCC 101] and Santosh Kumar vs.
Municipal Corporation & Anr. [2000 (9) SCC 151], more so when the counsel appearing for the State in the
High Court conceded to the fact that the case on hand is similar. “It was also argued that because the
respondent had already paid the sum of Rs.20,000/-, the interests of justice would not be jeopardised by
allowing the High Court's order to stand and the Government issuing orders commuting the sentence of
imprisonment to one of fine, as the High Court had indicated.We have carefully considered the submissions
of the learned counsel appearing on either side. Apparently, the learned Judge in the High Court was merely
swayed by considerations of judicial comity and propriety and failed to see that merely because this Court
has issued directions in some other cases, to deal with the fact situation in those other cases, in the purported
exercise of its undoubted inherent and plenary powers to do complete justice, keeping aside even
technicalities, the High Court, exercising statutory powers under the Criminal Laws of the land, could not
afford to assume to itself the powers or jurisdiction to do the same or similar things.12 The High Court and
all other courts in the country were no doubt ordained to follow and apply the law declared by this Court,
but that does not absolve them of the obligation and responsibility to find out the ratio of the decision and
ascertain the law, if any, so declared from a careful reading of the decision concerned and only thereafter
proceed to apply it appropriately, to the cases before them. Considered in that context, we could not find
from the decisions reported in 1997 (9) SCC 101 (supra) and 2000 (9) SCC 151 (supra) any law having been
declared or any principle or question of law having been decided or laid down therein and that in those cases
this Court merely proceeded to give certain directions to dispose of the matter in the special circumstances
noticed by it and the need felt, in those cases, by this Court to give such a disposal.” The same could not
have been mechanically adopted as a general formula to dispose of, as a matter of routine, all cases coming
before any or all the courts as an universal and invariable solution in all such future cases also. The High
Court had no justifying reason to disturb the conclusion of the first Appellate Court, in this regard.
“Aside from that, Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, states that the relevant government
may, without the approval of the person convicted, commute a term of simple imprisonment for a fine,
among other items mentioned therein.” While considering clause (b) of the same provision in State of
Punjab vs. Kesar Singh (supra), this Court stated: “The mandate of Section 433, Cr.P.C., enables the
Government in an appropriate case to commute the sentence of a convict and to prematurely order his
release before the expiration of the sentence as imposed by the Courts.” Apart from that, even if the High
Court could issue such an order, it could only do so in the instance of the respondent's early release by the
Government and not in the situation of the respondent's own early release. The Government has the right to
12
Section 433 of criminal procedural code,1973
utilise the power conferred by Section 433, Cr. P.C., and it must do so in line with the rules and established
principles. “As a result, the High Court's impugned order cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside." The
nature and content of the High Court's order in this case show that the State Government has been given no
discretion or liberty to execute powers under Section 433 (d), Cr.P.C., at its discretion, notwithstanding the
fact that these powers are part of the State's residuary sovereign power. In the instance at hand, the High
Court not only decided to commute, but also issued a mandatory direction to the Government”, leaving it
with no discretion or liberty save to "formalise" the sentence upon payment of the fine sum established by
the Court.We further believe that such powers may not be exercised at the appropriate Government's sweet
will, pleasure, whim, or fancy on a regular basis. As previously stated, the powers conferred on the
appropriate Government under Section 433, Cr. P.C., must be exercised reasonably and rationally, taking
into account the reasons germane and relevant for the purpose of law under which the conviction and
sentence were imposed, commiserative facts necessitating the commutation, and the public interest. Any
power vested in a public authority by statute must always be considered as a trust, with a responsibility to
exercise it in the greater public and societal interest as well. “When a legislature chooses to compel the
imposition of a minimum sentence in a certain case, the responsibility of the competent government become
even larger, and the power under Section 433, Cr.P.C., may have to be used with great caution. Otherwise,
the legislative branch will become a mere rubber stamp for the executive's whims Whatever the case may be,
this judgement shall not be considered to take away any advantage, if any, already granted to an accused for
the purpose of following previous decisions, as has been done in this case. This scenario appears to have
occurred in part as a result of a misunderstanding of the effects of the two judgments mentioned above, as
well as the reporting of such cases as though they served as precedent for future guidance. In the case at
hand, it has been stated that the accused has remitted the sum of Rs.20,000/- as ordered by the learned Judge
in the High Court, and that the competent Government, in this and similar circumstances where Court orders
have already been issued, would do well to provide relief to the accused.” If the Government determines that
it is not advisable to do so, it is always open to the Government concerned to either petition the Court or the
Appellate/Revisional forum to modify the orders, leaving the matter to the sole discretion of the appropriate
Government to be exercised in accordance with the law.The appeal is allowed to the extent of clarifying the
position of law to be followed and disposing of the same in the light of the further directions, contained
supra.
 DELAY AS GROUND FOR COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE

“Delay in deciding mercy plea is itself a ground for commutation of a sentence .Even though it had been
overruled in Triveniben, counsel for the petitioner argued in Bhullar that the ruling in T.V. Vatheeswaran v.
State of Tamil Nadu (Vatheeswaran)13, which held that long delay made the sentence inhuman and
degrading, was the correct legal position.However, the Court did not approve or deny such a claim, merely
describing it as attractive. The strongest arguments in favour of commutation have been that sentences of
death accompanied by prolonged delay cause mental agony to the convicts and amount to inhuman
punishments, perhaps even offending the rule against double jeopardy.14The advocates of commutation
argue that since the death penalty is an irreversible decision, the duty of the State to exercise caution is much
higher in these cases.15”

Shatrughan Chauhan & anr. vs. Union of India & ors

The “current case was brought by the family members of death convicts- Suresh and Ramji, who were
sentenced to death in 1997 along with 13 other inmates and this case revolves around the question of delay
caused deciding the mercy petition.
Their criminal appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2001, and the petitioners then filed a mercy
petition to the President/Governor of India in the same year.
Despite the fact that the Governor rejected the petition for compassion, the petitioners and their families
were never informed.
Collecting all of the necessary documents, trial court decisions, and information concerning the status of the
petitioners' mercy petition, among other things, took nearly 12 years.
On February 8, 2013, the President, too, denied their mercy petition, although it took two months for the
petitioners to learn about it through press coverage because no official confirmation from the relevant
authorities had been submitted.The current case was brought in light of the undue and inordinate delay in
determining the mercy appeal, as well as a request that all death convicts' sentences be commuted to life
imprisonment.”

ISSUES INVOLVED
Whether the delay caused in disposing off the mercy petition amounts as a violation of Article 21 of the
death convicts?

13
T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1983) 2 SCC 68
14
Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 6 SCC 195 : AIR 2013 SC 1975; Mahendra Nath Das v. Union of
India, (2013) 6 SCC 253.
15
Sher Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 465; Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 6 SCC
195 : AIR 2013 SC 1975; Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India,(2014) 3 SCC 1
Whether the failure/delay on part of the Executive to dispose of the mercy petition filed under Article72/161
of the Constitution within a reasonable time can act as a sufficient ground for commuting death sentence
into life imprisonment?

JUDGEMNET

On 21st January 2014, the judgment in Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr v. Union of India was delivered by a
three-judge bench.Although commuting the death sentences of all 15 convicts to life in jail, the Supreme
Court held that undue, inordinate, and unfair delay in deciding the mercy petition is enough to entitle the
prisoner to seek commutation. The President's delay in denying the mercy appeal is torture and a blatant
violation of Article 21 of the inmates' rights. At the same time, the Supreme Court declined to set a time
limit beyond which excessive delay would be considered torture and stated that sentence execution must be
carried out in accordance with the Constitution's mandate.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
In “the case of Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr v. Union of India, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court
issued a landmark judgement on the death penalty on January 21, 2014, declaring that an unreasonable delay
in carrying out the death sentence constituted an essential mitigating factor in a motion for commutation.
The Court found that the twelve-year gap in reviewing the mercy petition is a relevant grounds for reducing
the death sentence to life imprisonment in the absence of proper, compelling, and appropriate reasons.
Article 21 is known as the heart and soul of fundamental rights since it stipulates that no one's life or
personal liberty can be taken away without going through a judicial process. There are no traits more
important to a democratic society than the lives and personal freedoms of its citizens.” Chief Justice P.
Sathasivam states, “Our Constitution is highly appreciated for its articulation.” According to Article 21 of
the Constitution, "every human being has an essential right to life," and "no one shall be deprived of his or
her life or personal liberty except in compliance with legal procedures." “The twin traits of right to life and
personal liberty outweigh all other features of the political and social order. The Constitution's Article 21
encompasses not only the imposition of a penalty, but also the stage of execution of such sentence. A
protracted gap in the execution of a death sentence, as previously noted, dehumanises the convicted. The
death penalty was commuted in this instance due to a delay induced by events beyond the” convicts' control.
Because the prisoner suffers bodily and psychological agony as a result of the delay, the court made the
correct judgement in commuting the death punishment to life imprisonment. Furthermore, as the sole
guardian of the Indian Constitution's principles, the Supreme Court not only expanded the scope of Article
21 to include the rights of convicts, but also contributed to the respect of international norms established by
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which India is a signatory. Because our domestic
law is nearly equivalent to international law, the Court treated "insanity" as a supervening circumstance,
emphasising that executing a crazy person who is unable to comprehend the meaning of his conduct and
cannot defend himself would be a clear breach of human rights.
It's also worth noting that, in this case, the Supreme Court used selective judicial review to serve as a
touchstone for comprehending our Constitution's federal structure. “This Court essentially established a
system of checks and balances by commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment and cites inordinate and
unreasonable delay as a key mitigating factor. This implies that the Executive will be held accountable for
its acts as well.
The fact that Shatrughan Chauhan case has laid down guidelines to protect the right to life and personal
liberty of death-row prisoners, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is also commendable. These
guidelines have put an end to the disparities in implementing the already existing laws for safeguarding the
interest of the death row convict.”
 CONCLUSION

Commuting “sentence basically means reduction in punishment, in other words it lessens the prisoner’s
sentence. The power to commute sentence is a power vested in the appropriate government under section
433 of criminal procedural code. There are no limitations on the government's ability to commute a
sentence, even though it is just a fine.. Now coming to the research question 433-A of crpc cannot limit the
constitutional power of the President (Union Council of Ministers) and the Governor of a State (Council of
Ministers of a State) under Articles 72 and 161 to grant complete pardon even before the legislative time
specified by Section 433-A has expired. The relevant government's ability to exercise its powers under
Section 432 CrPC is limited by Section 433-A, but the constitutional power under Articles 72 and 161 is
unaffected. In cases of wrongful prosecution or miscarriage of justice, a pardon can be very helpful in
preventing an innocent person from being prosecuted. The prospect of being pardoned acts as an incentive
for the prisoner to behave well in jail, and thus aids in the resolution of the prison discipline issue.
Giving liberty to a convicted criminal is often superior to punishing an innocent person. The aim of
pardoning power is to correct potential judicial mistakes, since no human system of judicial administration is
without flaws. And hence for the following reasons commutation also plays a very important role in
achieving justice and to give the prisoner one last chance of hope.”
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Criminal procedural code
M.P jain , The Indian constitution

Websites and articles

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/maru-ram/
https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/commutation-of-death-sentence#:~:text=In
%20Maru%20Ram%20v%20Union,Government%20is%20binding%20on%20him.
https://www.legalbites.in/commutation-of-death-sentence-and-life-imprisonment/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/459738/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/execution-suspension-remission-and-commutation-of-
sentences/#:~:text=Commutation%20of%20sentence,-In%20contrast%20to&text=Under%20Section
%20433%20of%20the,punishment%20provided%20in%20the%20IPC.