Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The power of clemency, vested in the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution, is a crucial safeguard against miscarriage of justice. However, prolonged delays in deciding mercy petitions have become a contentious issue, often perceived as denial of justice, particularly in death penalty cases. Recent instances, such as the delays in the execution of Ajmal Kasab and Yakub Memon, have sparked public debate. The question of whether a time limit should be imposed on the President to accept or reject such petitions raises fundamental questions about the separation of powers, judicial review, and the right to a speedy trial.
Arguments in Favour of a Time Limit
Several arguments support the imposition of a time limit for Presidential decisions on mercy petitions:
- Reducing Uncertainty & Anguish: Prolonged delays create immense psychological distress for the condemned prisoner and their families. A time limit would provide certainty and closure.
- Ensuring Justice: The principle of ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ applies strongly in these cases. Unreasonable delays can undermine the very purpose of the justice system.
- Accountability & Efficiency: A time limit would compel the President to diligently review petitions, preventing them from being indefinitely shelved.
- Judicial Precedents: The Supreme Court in Mohd. Arif v. Republic of India (1968) emphasized the need for a reasonable time frame for exercising powers of clemency. While not explicitly setting a time limit, the court acknowledged the importance of expeditious consideration.
- International Standards: Many countries with capital punishment have statutory time limits for clemency petitions, reflecting a global trend towards more humane and efficient justice systems.
Arguments Against a Time Limit
Conversely, there are strong arguments against imposing a rigid time limit:
- Infringement on Presidential Discretion: Article 72 grants the President absolute discretion in granting pardons, reprieves, etc. A time limit could be seen as an encroachment on this constitutional power.
- Complexity of Cases: Mercy petitions often involve complex legal and factual issues, requiring thorough examination. A fixed time limit might force a hasty decision, potentially leading to errors.
- Political Considerations: The President, as the Head of State, may need to consider broader political and social implications before making a decision. A time limit could stifle this deliberation.
- Judicial Review: The Supreme Court retains the power of judicial review over Presidential decisions. Imposing a time limit doesn’t negate the possibility of challenges based on procedural irregularities or violation of fundamental rights.
- Potential for Arbitrariness: A rigid time limit might lead to a mechanical approach, ignoring the unique circumstances of each case.
Possible Solutions & Way Forward
Instead of a strict time limit, a more pragmatic approach could involve:
- Establishing Guidelines: The President could establish internal guidelines outlining a reasonable timeframe for processing mercy petitions, based on the complexity of the case.
- Strengthening the Review Process: Improving the efficiency of the review process within the Ministry of Home Affairs and the President’s Secretariat.
- Transparency & Accountability: Making the process more transparent by publishing data on the number of pending petitions and the average time taken for disposal.
- Constitutional Amendment (Cautious Approach): While a constitutional amendment to fix a time limit is possible, it should be considered cautiously, weighing the potential benefits against the risk of undermining Presidential powers.
The 187th Law Commission Report (2018) also discussed the issue of delays in mercy petitions and suggested streamlining the process but stopped short of recommending a fixed time limit.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding a time limit for Presidential decisions on mercy petitions is complex, involving constitutional principles, human rights concerns, and practical considerations. While the need for expeditious disposal of petitions is undeniable, a rigid time limit could potentially compromise Presidential discretion and lead to hasty decisions. A more balanced approach, focusing on streamlining the review process, enhancing transparency, and establishing internal guidelines, appears to be a more viable solution. Ultimately, ensuring a fair and just process, while respecting the constitutional framework, should be the paramount objective.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.