Abolish Mercy Petition For Terrorists And Amend Terror Laws
๐ Context and Background
The issue of mercy petitions and terror laws has been a subject of intense debate in India due to the delicate balance between national security and fundamental rights of accused persons.
Mercy Petition
A mercy petition is a plea made to the President of India (under Article 72 of the Constitution) or the Governor (under Article 161) to grant clemency or pardon, usually after the death sentence has been confirmed by the highest courts.
Terror convicts, like others, have the right to file mercy petitions.
However, many argue that terrorists, given the grave threat they pose, should be excluded from this remedy.
Terror Laws
India has several laws to combat terrorism: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA - now repealed), National Investigation Agency Act, etc.
There have been demands to strengthen these laws to effectively tackle terrorism.
Conversely, critics caution against excessive powers leading to misuse and violation of human rights.
๐งพ Arguments For Abolishing Mercy Petitions for Terrorists
Deterrence:
Abolishing mercy petitions for terrorists would act as a strong deterrent against heinous terrorist acts.
Justice for Victims:
Victims and their families seek closure, and repeated mercy petitions delay justice and prolong their agony.
National Security:
Terrorism threatens the very sovereignty and security of the nation; leniency is seen as harmful.
Precedent in Other Countries:
Some countries dealing with terrorism have restricted clemency for terrorists.
๐งพ Arguments Against Abolishing Mercy Petitions
Fundamental Rights and Constitutional Safeguards:
Mercy petitions are a constitutional safeguard against miscarriages of justice and offer a final chance for mercy.
Risk of Judicial Errors:
Terrorism cases are complex, and the possibility of wrongful convictions exists; mercy petitions serve as a corrective.
International Norms:
Abolishing mercy petitions might violate international human rights principles.
โ๏ธ Relevant Case Law and Judicial Pronouncements
1. Epuru Sudhakar & Ors v. Govt. of A.P., (2006) 8 SCC 161
The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of mercy petitions as a constitutional remedy but stated that they cannot be used as a matter of right. The Court also highlighted the importance of balancing mercy with justice.
2. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1
The Supreme Court held that mercy petitions must be decided within a reasonable time to prevent inordinate delay.
The Court also indicated that mercy petitions should not be used to cause undue delay in capital punishment executions.
Though the case was not terrorism-specific, the principles apply equally.
3. Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713
The Court upheld stringent provisions of the UAPA and noted the gravity of terror-related offences.
It stressed the need for effective tools to fight terrorism, but did not rule on mercy petitions.
4. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2023) (Delhi High Court)
While not directly on mercy petitions, the Court examined the balance between national security and personal liberty under anti-terror laws.
Emphasized the need to amend terror laws to plug loopholes while protecting constitutional rights.
๐งโโ๏ธ Judicial Attitude Towards Amendments in Terror Laws
Courts have generally supported the strengthening of anti-terror legislation to effectively deal with evolving threats.
However, courts have also repeatedly stressed the need to safeguard fundamental rights and prevent misuse.
For example, the Supreme Court has often reiterated the requirement of stringent procedural safeguards and judicial oversight in terror-related trials.
๐ Discussion on Amendments
Possible Amendments Proposed or Debated:
Exclude terrorists from mercy petitions: To ensure swift justice and avoid delays.
Fast-track courts for terror cases: To expedite trials.
Stricter bail norms: To prevent terrorists from exploiting legal loopholes.
Enhanced surveillance and investigative powers: To prevent terror acts proactively.
Checks and balances: To prevent misuse of stringent laws.
๐ Summary
The abolition of mercy petitions for terrorists is debated with strong arguments on both sides, balancing deterrence and justice.
The Supreme Court has upheld mercy petitions as a constitutional remedy but cautioned against undue delay and misuse.
Courts support strengthening terror laws with safeguards to protect national security without trampling rights.
Amendments are needed but must ensure fair trial rights, timely justice, and prevention of misuse.
RELATED Blog
0 comments