1. EXTRACT OF REPORT
“PETITIONER COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ‘SEGREGATED’ TILLHIS MERCY
PETITIONWAS DISPOSED OFF” ANALYSE IN LIGHT OF THE CASE:
AJAY KUMAR PAL V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR (SC) 12.12.2014
SHINJAN CHOUDHURI
A3211111131
B.A.LL.B(H), 2011-16
AMITY LAW SCHOOL
AMITY UNIVERSITY NOIDA
INDEX

2. Chapter 1- Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Chapter 2- Case Study "Ajay Kumar Pal v. Union of India"
2.1 Brief Facts
2.2 Issues
2.3 Judicial Precedents
2.4 Judgment
2.5 Analysis
Chapter 3- Conclusion and Suggestions
3.1 Law and Morality
3.2 Conclusion
References

3. FROM CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In India, the death penalty is awarded under very rare circumstances. It is even more rare, for
there to be an event where the death penalty is commuted, and even more so when such
commutation occurs without the use of a Mercy petition. There have been instances in the
past, where the Supreme Court has overturned the decision of lower courts, during
extraordinary events, when it feels that there has been a transgression on the part of the
competent authorities.
Commuting the sentence of a convict does not entail that he is being acquitted of his crime,
but that he is deserving of leniency owing to the circumstances. The case of Ajay Kumar Pal
V. Union of India is a clear example of such a situation, where the death penalty was
commuted to life imprisonment, because of violation of fundamental rights that are attributed
to a person, regardless of their criminal conviction. The courts have always in the past upheld
that any long delays, as well as inordinate ones, can be grounds for challenging a final verdict
delivered by the court. However, it is maintained that such delays must be events subsequent
to the final judgement.
The issue revolving commutation of sentence is its scope. The sentence of an offender may be
commuted by means of a mercy petition passed by the President of India. However, the law
has provisions to ensure that the means of commutation do not end at the rejection of such a
petition. Commutation simply means altering something, and under section 54 of the Indian
Penal Code 1860, commutation reads as: In every case in which sentence of death shall have
been passed, [the appropriate Government] may, without the consent of the offender,
commute the punishment for any other punishment provided by this Code1
. The provision
beyond this is provided in the Constitution of India, under article 322
, which enables a person
file a writ petition, for grounds such as inordinate delays encountered during disposal of
mercy petitions, as in this case.
This judgment was passed in December 2014, since the court agreed that a prisoner could not
be held in solitary confinement, until his Mercy Petition is disposed off. The Mercy Petition
of the defendant had not been disposed off for a period of 3 years and 10 months, during
which he was subject to being held in solitary confinement, which infringed on the
fundamental rights that each person holds. This ‘inordinate delay’ was not on account of the
petitioner, but by the authorities and functionaries involved. In light of these circumstances,
1
Indian Penal Code, Act No. 45 of 1860, Sec. 54
2
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 32

4. the Supreme Court was well within its powers under Article 32 to hear the grievance of the
convict and commute his sentence.
FROM CHAPTER 2
2.5 Analysis
In light of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court, it is observed that there is a shift
towards a reformative mindset within the judiciary concerning punishment. The basis of this
is drawn reformative theories of punishment regarding criminal law. To uphold the moral
conscience within society and law, the Supreme Court advocated for reformative punishment
in the case of Narotam Singh V. State of Punjab3
.
From the viewpoint of human rights and activism, this approach on punishment is indeed
important. But from the point of law, the case has shown the same perseverance as the
precedents before it. The Supreme Court has effectively discovered the path that upholds the
law to its fullest extent. By establishing that there is a matter of incalculable harm that is
caused in such a scenario, the guarantees under the constitution are upheld. This proves the
fundamentals of law from which a decision cannot deviate.
This case shows two incredibly important administrative events that combined to deliver a
gross violation of fundamental right to both liberty and life, when solitary confinement is
taken note of along with the unfair delay. The case also improved on the previous existing
interpretation on the phrase ‘under sentence of death’. On 09.04.2007, the petitioner was
awarded the sentence of death and placed under solitary confinement to adhere to the section
30 of the prisons act.
The question that the court has exceptionally tackled is the interpretation of the above phrase.
The time for the application of the provision for incarceration of a person awarded the death
penalty does not come even after the confirmation by the High court after the trial court’s
sentence. The finality of this sentence will only be achieved when the mercy petitions, by both
the Governor and the President, are rejected. This is when the provision under the Prisons Act
comes into play and the prisoner can be segregated in his confinement.
3
Narotam Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. AIR 1978 SC 1542

5. FROM CHAPTER 3
3.1 Law and Morality
The procedures to commute a sentence have been kept in place to prevent any person from
being harm in the process of delivery of justice. The legislatures in place to establish criminal
law are derived from theories of punishment that encourage the use of deterrents and
reformation for criminals. It enables the State to discourage the offenders that commit crimes
and presents an opportunity to possibly reform a convict.
The sentence of death comes under scrutiny from various factions in society. The Indian
Justice System prescribes the use of extreme measures for only the most severe offences.
These measures involve capital punishment and the death penalty.
At this point in time however, I do not believe that a reformation technique of punishment is
sufficient when the deterring procedures have gaping holes in them. In this day and age, crime
has reached an alarming rate, and if prisoners are constantly receiving commutations for their
death sentences, it revokes the message of punishment for committing grave and grotesque
crimes. Without a sense of fear, the wrong doers in society will remain carefree and at large.
The tools at the disposal of the justice system regarding commutation are meant to preserve
the true essence of the law. But the commutation due to inordinate delays will only add to the
reduction of fear in the minds of offenders. If punishment is the measure taken against the
crime of a wrong doer, then it would amount to injustice concerning the victims and innocent
people affected by such crimes. In the case of State of Punjab V. Rakesh Kumar4
, the court
established that there is a definitive line that demarcates appropriate justice from injustice. If
inadequate punishment is awarded then the confidence of the public would be shaken and in
turn, harm the justice system. The worst possible outcome of continuing down such a path can
be public outrage on the injustice of the Judicial system to prescribe punishment and deliver
it.
The honour of the law itself is compromised if the society that is governed by it has no faith
in it any longer. The element of fear is essential to the system of punishment. For it to work
effectively, the drawbacks of the legal system that have been pointed out here have to be
addressed.
All three primary organs of the government require refining in light of these events.
 The executive is in need of amending its process of administration of duties. When put
in context with the judicial system, it results in loss of effective delivery of justice.
4
State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar, Criminal Appeal No. 1365 of 2008

6.  The legislature should propose and complete amendments to provisions such as
section 30 of the prisons act, to ensure that there is no longer any kind of
misinterpretation regarding the circumstances that lead to a death-row convict’s
incarceration.
 The judiciary has overlooked a particular aspect of law in this scenario. In the process
of providing a solution to the dilemma at hand and upholding the law, the supreme
court in no way took into consideration compensation in terms of the Writ filed. If
there is a clear violation observed by the Supreme Court, it should be ready to take
measures for the irreparable damage that the drawbacks of the justice system may
have caused.
3.2 Conclusion
This case study has focused on aspects of law, ethics, morality and governance. It has proven
that once again, there are gaps in the systems we believe to be sturdy. It is at this point that the
test of time is taking its toll on them. On several occasions the outright negative aspects of the
justice delivery system are presented before us, and the provisions created for order turn on
each other to create chaos.
Despite all the issues that were addressed, the grievances of a citizen were most certainly
taken up by the court to right a wrong. However this judgment is about more than just the
injustice of one man. It speaks to the injustice everyone is, or could be, subject to. Whether
criminal or innocent, these events prove that everyone is capable of being a victim at the
hands of the system, if not administered properly.
The entire chain of events in this case showed a kind of domino effect. It all began with the
incarceration prior to disposal of the mercy petitions, which gained momentum with the
undue delays established and finally led to the commutation of sentence at the hands of the
Apex Court. The case also gave answers in the face of doubt concerning interpretation of a
statute. This supports the law’s ability to set a standard with precedents, which can help
achieve stability within the justice delivery system.
However, these chains of events beget the question, why are these loopholes and
disadvantages still allowed to persist? The problems are wide and varied, ranging from
interpreting statutes correctly, to overturning decisions and setting precedents, and the issues
of competence within the system that was built for our protection. Even a case as high profile

7. as the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination5
case, saw the setting aside of death sentences on the
grounds of unjustifiable delays on the part of the execution.
The Supreme Court has now shown that it is beginning an era of reformation of the procedure
surrounding the death sentence. The commutations as seen in this case study do not entail that
the Supreme Court has given up on the death penalty. On the contrary, it shows that there are
steps being taken to ensure the proper execution and delivery with punishments that carry
harsh terms with them.
Ajay Kumar Pal V. Union of India6
has delivered a message to the administrative organs and
executive bodies of the State that they cannot take such extensive amounts of time to take
decisions regarding mercy petitions. Delays in these matters concerning death-row prisoners
shall require the concerned authorities to furnish acceptable justification from this point
onwards.
In the end, the case has been revelatory in respect of the drawbacks as well as the
contingencies in place, within the justice system. It has forced the justice system to wake up
to the dehumanising of people that is occurring from cracks in the foundations. This will
hopefully provide a new benchmark for justice as well as the executive, to improve and learn
from such mistakes, and secure a better future for its citizens.
5
Shabnam v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 89 of 2015
6
Ajay Kumar Pal v. Union of India and Anr. Writ Petition (Criminal) No.128 of 2014