7 September 2024 - Legal Updates

1. Supreme Court to Lay Down Procedure to Avoid Delays in Execution of Death Penalty After Mercy Petition is Rejected

The Supreme Court said that it will lay down procedure to be followed by the state and the Judiciary after the Supreme Court confirms death sentence of a convict and mercy petition is rejected in order to avoid delay in execution of the sentence.

During the hearing the court asked what procedure would be followed if the sessions court issued a warrant without verifying whether any mercy petitions were pending. The bench suggested that once the Supreme Court confirms the death sentence the death sentence the state must approach the sessions court for an execution warrant. The convict would then be notified, informed of the right to legal representation, and allowed the opportunity to confirm whether any mercy petition is pending.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih reserved its judgment in an appeal by the State of Maharashtra against the 2019 Bombay High Court decision commuting the death sentence of two convicts in the 2007 Pune BPO gangrape and murder case. The President rejected the mercy pleas of the convicts on May 26, 2017.

“Ultimately why does delay matter? Because the accused remain under the hanging sword of execution that could fall. That is why delay is material”, Justice Oka remarked.

Convicts Purshottam Borate and Pradeep Kokade were sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a 22-year-old woman employed with a BPO in Pune. The Bombay High Court had commuted their death sentence to life imprisonment, with a fixed term of 35 years, citing inordinate delays in the execution process.

During the hearing, the bench highlighted the issue of the long delay in executing the death sentence, questioning whether it is now reasonable to convert the punishment back to death after so many years. The convicts, since 2015, had been left in uncertainty, waiting for their execution under the “the hanging sword of gallows”, the bench remarked.

“Ultimately there is something known as Article 21. After so many years, can we convert again into death sentence? Nine years delay is not inordinate delay?” Justice Oka asked the State.

The Court pointed out the delay in executing the death sentence after it was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015. The mercy petition of the convicts was submitted to the Governor of Maharashtra in 2015. However, the Governor's decision was made on April 28, 2016.

The Court noted that there was an eight-month delay by the Governor of Maharashtra in deciding the mercy petition. Justice Oka pointed out the casual approach adopted by the state government in dealing with the mercy petition, highlighting that the state's correspondence regarding essential case documents stretched unnecessarily.

The Court also pointed out the administrative delay in both the Governor and President's offices in processing the mercy petitions. Justice Oka said that such insensitivity also affects the relatives of the victims, as it court potentially work in favour of the accused.

The State's counsel argued that the powers of the Governor and President to grant mercy cannot be exercised hastily. However, Justice Oka noted that there was little explanation for the delay by both the Governor and President.

The Court also pointed out the delay in issuing the death warrants after the rejection of the mercy petitions. Justice Oka questioned why the State did not apply for an execution warrant from the Sessions Court after the rejection of the mercy petition instead of writing letters to the Sessions Court.

“Why didn't the prosecutor apply to the sessions court for warrant for execution? Why was he writing letters to court? What is this procedure adopted by the state of not making applications? Somebody should have gone to the court and made an application to the court. We will have to lay down the procedure that after mercy petitions are rejected public prosecutor must produce all the documents to the sessions court.”

Justice Amanullah added, “There is no concept of writing letters in judicial procedure.”

The State's Counsel argued that as per Sections 413 and 414 of the CrPC, once the mercy petition is rejected, the Sessions Court need only be informed of the decision. After that, the sessions court has to issue notice to the convict and grant him opportunity of hearing before issuance of death warrant.

The bench also noted judicial delay, highlighting that the Sessions Court after receiving information about the rejection of mercy petition could have acted on its own to initiate the process of issuance of execution warrant. “Advisedly, the State should have filed an application. But there were many letters. We will lay down guidelines on this. All the court needed to do was to issue notice to the convict. So, court is not absolved of its duty. Can we stretch it to say that sessions court in spite of receiving letters, judgement of this court, cannot issue notice?” Justice Oka said.

The Bombay High Court, in 2019, had commuted the death sentence of the convicts due to significant delays in the execution process. The High Court found that there had been an unreasonable delay of 1507 days, or over four years, between the Supreme Court's dismissal of the convicts' appeal in 2015 and the scheduled execution in June 2019.

The HC observed that the delay in processing the mercy petitions could have been avoided if the authorities had acted with a sense of urgency. The HC also said that the convicts had spent eight years in solitary confinement, in violation of their constitutional rights under Article 21.

Case- State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade and Anr.

2. We Can’t Run GST Administration : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Rating Mechanism For GST Payers

The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to the union to formulate and implement a centralized rating mechanism of taxpayers under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (CGST Act).

The bench led by CJI  DY Chandrachud  comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra refused to entertain the PIL since such a relief would fall outside the scope of the writ jurisdiction.

The CJI, while dismissing the PIL, opined, “That's a matter for the Parliament; let's not use PIL jurisdictions for this. PIL is for crucial issues of human rights…you can't have a rating mechanism under PIL, you see a good issue in the newspapers and say chalo PIL!”

“That's for the GST administration right; we don't want to run the GST administration sitting here.”

He stressed that it was for the state agencies to examine the effectiveness and applicability of rating mechanisms.

“These are relatively evolving issues. These are matters of fiscal importance, what is the impact of a rating mechanism, how should it be accurate? These are matters of public administration”

The bench also noted that while Government of Kerala was preparing to implement a similar policy of 'Tax Payer Card', it was for the Central Agencies to understand its practicality and not the Courts.

The petitioner who is a Chartered Accountant in his plea contended that S.149 of CGST Act provides for a rating system for keeping track of taxpayers. However there exists a lacuna on appropriate directions for its implementation.

Notably section 149 states: Goods and Services tax compliance rating

1) Every registered person may be assigned a goods and services tax compliance rating score by the government based on his record of compliance with the provisions of this Act.

2) The goods and services tax compliance rating score may be updated at periodic intervals and intimated to the registered person and also placed in the public domain in such manner as may be prescribed.

3) The goods and services tax compliance rating score may be updated at periodic intervals and intimated to the registered person and also placed in the public domain in such manner as may be prescribed.

The following reliefs were sought by the Petitioner:

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Union Govt. / GST Council to take all necessary steps to implement frame GST rules for rating system and implement a centralized rating system (GST being one nation one tax) through Goods and Services Tax Network which is central nodal agency for implementations of GST laws;

b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the States not to implement their own rating system and to take instructions from GST Council regarding the same;

с. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the GST council to make recommendations to the union and states for following centralized rating system instead of making their own rating system and

d. Pass such further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.

Case- Pradeep Goyal vs. Union of India