Correct option is C
The correct answer is
(c) commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment. The case
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1 is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that deals with the commutation of death sentences to life imprisonment. The case primarily addressed the issue of inordinate delay in the disposal of mercy petitions filed by death row convicts. The Supreme Court held that such undue delay in deciding mercy petitions can be a ground for commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment.
·
Key Points from the Judgment:
·
Mercy Petition Delays: The Court ruled that prolonged delay in the disposal of mercy petitions by the President or the Governor of India can result in mental agony and torture for the death row convicts, which violates their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
·
Commutation of Death Sentence: The Court commuted the death sentences of several convicts to life imprisonment due to the unreasonable delay in processing their mercy petitions.
·
Human Rights Considerations: The judgment emphasized the importance of human rights and the right to life and dignity, even for those convicted of heinous crimes.
Information Booster:
1.
Article 21 of the Constitution: The judgment reinforced that the right to life and personal liberty includes the right against prolonged delay in the execution of a death sentence.
2.
Clemency Powers: The President and the Governor have the constitutional power to grant clemency under Articles 72 and 161, respectively, but these powers must be exercised without undue delay.
3.
Impact on Death Penalty Cases: This case set a precedent for the commutation of death sentences in cases where there has been a significant delay in deciding mercy petitions.
4.
Mental Agony and Torture: The Court recognized that prolonged uncertainty regarding execution amounts to mental torture, which justifies the commutation.
5.
Guidelines for Future Cases: The judgment laid down guidelines for the timely disposal of mercy petitions to prevent similar delays in the future.
Additional Information:
·
False Evidence (a): Section 191 of the I.P.C. deals with giving false evidence, but this is not related to the
Shatrughan Chauhan case.
·
Waging War (b): Section 121 of the I.P.C. covers waging war against the state, but this is not the subject of the
Shatrughan Chauhan case.
·
None of the Above (d): Incorrect, as option (c) correctly identifies the issue in the
Shatrughan Chauhan case.
