Why can’t president find time to decide mercy pleas?

It is absurd to argue that she can't be given a timeframe

prasanna

Prasanna Mohanty | January 11, 2012



The UPA government seems to revel in keeping the death sentences hanging and this is what is reflected in the affidavit it filed before the apex court on Tuesday to explain the delay in deciding the mercy plea of Khalistani terrorist Devender Pal Singh Bhullar. Bhullar is a convict in the 1993 blast in New Delhi which injured the then Youth Congress leader MS Bitta. His death sentence was confirmed by the apex court in 2003, following which a mercy plea was moved. After eight years, the president finally dismissed it in May 2011 but not before a petition was moved before the apex court seeking an explanation for the delay.

What does the government say to explain it? It says the president has “special powers” under Article 72 of the constitution and that no specific timeframe can be set for the president to decide mercy pleas. The affidavit states that “the powers of the president are discretionary which can’t be taken away by any statutory provision and can’t be altered, modified or interfered with in any manner whatsoever by any statutory provision or authority” and that “the court, therefore, can’t prescribe a time limit for disposal”.

That may be so, but examine this statement against the backdrop of time the president has been taking to decide the petitions. The mercy plea of Bhullar was decided in eight years but that of Afzal Guru (convicted in connection with the 2001 attack on the parliament building), moved in 2004, is still pending. The number of pending cases has gone up to 20.

What, pray, the president is busy with given the fact that she mostly performs a handful of ceremonial tasks a year not to find time to dispose of mercy petitions? And then, isn’t she supposed to act on the advice of the council of ministers? Moreover, the mercy petitions are moved after the apex court has confirmed a death sentence and also, disposed of review or curative petition and so, the president doesn’t need to refer the matter to the apex court or to the legal experts. Assuming that she has various social and family obligations too, wouldn’t it be fair to assume that she should be able to dispose of at least a couple of mercy petitions a year?

Nobody needs to fix a timeframe for the president. The highest constitutional office needs to fix a timeframe of its own for the sake of work ethics, accountability and above all, to ensure justice is done. The constitutional provisions and special powers to the president are not meant to promote procrastination or indecisiveness.

Comments

 

Other News

Making sense of facts – and alternative facts

The Art of Conjuring Alternate Realities: How Information Warfare Shapes Your World By Shivam Shankar Singh and Anand Venkatanarayanan HarperCollins / 284 pages / Rs 599 Professor Noam Chomsky, linguist and public intellectual, has often spoken of &ls

The Manali Trance: Economics of Abandoning Caution in the Time of Coronavirus

The brutal second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in India has left a significant death toll in its wake. Health experts advise that the imminent third wave can be delayed by following simple measures like wearing a mask and engaging in social distancing. However, near the end of the second wave, we witnesse

Govt considers fixing driving hrs of commercial vehicles

Union Minister of Road Transport and Highways Nitin Gadkari has emphasised deciding driving hours for truck drivers of commercial vehicles, similar to pilots, to reduce fatigue-induced road accidents. In a Na

Telecom department simplifies KYC processes for mobile users

In a step towards Telecom Reforms which aim to provide internet and tele connectivity for the marginalised section, the Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communica

Mumbai think tank calls for climate action

Raising concerns over rising seawater levels and climate change, Mumbai First, a 25-year-old public-private partnership policy think tank, has written letters to Maharashtra chief minister Uddhav Thackeray, minister for environment and climate change, tourism and protocol, Aditya Thackeray and Mumbai munic

Creation of ‘good bank’ as important as ‘bad bank’ for NPA management

After the recent announcement of the government guarantee for Security Receipts (SRs) to be issued by a public sector-owned National Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (NARCL), there is a surge of interest around this desi version of a super bad bank. The entity will acquire around ₹2 trillion bad debts fr

Visionary Talk: Gurcharan Das, Author, Commentator & Public Intellectual on key governance issues


Archives

Current Issue

Opinion

Facebook    Twitter    Google Plus    Linkedin    Subscribe Newsletter

Twitter