How does the Supreme Court balance the rights of death row convicts with the need for timely execution of justice?
The Supreme Court has rejected the Centre’s plea for stricter timelines for executing death row convicts. I want to understand the reasoning behind maintaining flexibility in such timelines and how it affects justice and human rights.
The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in balancing the rights of death row convicts with the need for timely execution of justice. This balance is essential to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done, while upholding human rights and constitutional values.
- Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court emphasizes the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It recognizes that death penalty cases involve the highest stakes, making it necessary to provide all possible legal remedies to convicts.
- Scope for Mercy Petitions and Review: Convicts are allowed to file review and curative petitions, as well as mercy petitions to the President and Governors. The Court ensures that these processes are not rushed, allowing convicts to exercise all available legal options.
- Prevention of Irreversible Errors: The Court is cautious about the possibility of miscarriage of justice, as execution is irreversible. It allows flexibility in timelines to minimize the risk of executing an innocent person or one whose legal remedies are pending.
- Mental Health and Dignity Concerns: The Court considers factors like the mental health of the convict, delays in disposal of mercy petitions, and the psychological impact of prolonged incarceration on death row, which could amount to cruel or inhuman treatment.
- Case-by-Case Approach: Instead of imposing strict timelines, the Supreme Court prefers a case-specific approach. This allows the Court to consider unique circumstances, such as delays caused by the State or new evidence coming to light.
- Balancing Timely Justice: While the Court acknowledges the need for timely execution of justice to maintain public confidence, it believes that rigid deadlines could compromise the fairness of the process and the rights of the convict.
Answered
4 days ago