Answer: 

Introduction:

The President of India has the constitutional authority to grant pardons, and to suspend, remit, or commute sentences in certain cases, as per Article 72 of the Indian Constitution. This power is exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers. However, there is no specified time limit for the President to accept or reject mercy petitions, leading to instances where petitions have languished for years. This delay has been a subject of criticism and public debate, especially in cases involving death sentences.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Body:

Some argue that a time limit should be established for the President to decide on mercy petitions, primarily for the following reasons:

• Right to Speedy Justice: Delay in deciding mercy petitions could infringe upon the right to speedy justice, which is considered an aspect of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• Humanitarian Concerns: Long delays can exacerbate the mental agony of the convict awaiting a decision on their fate, a state described as the “death row phenomenon.”

However, others argue against setting such a time limit due to:

• Complexity and Seriousness of Cases: Cases involving capital punishment are often complex, and the decision to pardon or commute a death sentence is a serious one with irreversible consequences. Therefore, it may be reasonable to allow the President sufficient time to consider all aspects of the case.
• Political Implications: Decisions on mercy petitions can have significant political implications. A time limit may rush the decision-making process, potentially leading to decisions that aren’t fully considered.

The issue of delay in deciding mercy petitions was highlighted in the case of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, a convict on death row.

• His mercy petition was pending before the President for over eight years before it was rejected.
• The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment in 2014, ruled that an inordinate delay in deciding a mercy petition is a ground for commutation of a death sentence.

Conclusion:

While there is a need to ensure speedy justice and alleviate the suffering of convicts awaiting a decision on their mercy petitions, it’s also important to allow sufficient time for a comprehensive review of all aspects of the case. Striking a balance between these competing concerns is a complex issue that calls for careful consideration. A potential way forward could be to establish guidelines or norms for deciding mercy petitions within a reasonable timeframe, without making it a rigid requirement.