Supreme Court sought Details of 18 Mercy Plea Pending Before the President

The Supreme Court of India on 3 April 2012 directed the Union government to provide records of all 18 mercy pleas, pending before the President of India. The court asked Additional Solicitor-General Harin Raval to furnish details of all the mercy pleas pending consideration before the President for periods ranging from one to seven years.

A Supreme Court bench comprising justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya also asked Ram Jethmalani, amicus curiae, to file written submissions on "whether the President should objectively apply mind while deciding mercy petitions". The apex court observed that the role of the state was perhaps advisory and the final verdict lies with the President.

The court directions came while hearing a plea filed by death convict Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, challenging the undue delay in disposal of his mercy petition by the President.

K T S Tulsi, senior counsel, appearing for Bhullar, told the court that between 1997 and 2011, the President has disposed off 32 mercy petitions, 13 of which were done after a 10-year wait. He further submitted that 14 other cases were disposed off after a delay ranging between four and 10 years, while the remaining cases were disposed off between one-four years.

Earlier Jethmalani told the court that there should not be even a day's delay in disposal of the mercy petition of the convict as it was violative of the persons right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Jethmalani further submitted that section 302 IPC lay down a maximum sentence of death but delay in execution of the death sentence or disposal of the mercy petition is tantamount to imposing additional punishment on the convict "if not sanctioned by law".

Important Information

Amicus curiae is a legal Latin phrase, which means friend of the court. The term refers to someone who is not a part of a case but voluntarily submit important information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to help the court in deciding a matter before it. The information may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief, testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision whether to admit the information lies with the discretion of the court.