NEW DELHI: Flagging a rise in crime due to what it described as leniency in commuting death sentences, the Supreme Court on Thursday said its “forgiving nature” in such cases has to "come to an end somewhere".
"Due to forgiving nature of Supreme Court in commuting death sentences, country is witnessing increase in crime. This has to come to an end somewhere. Earlier, rarest of rare doctrine was applied strictly, now commutation has become common," a two-judge Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu said orally while hearing a plea seeking premature release of a life convict whose death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in a murder case.
Justice Datta observed that murder convictions were earlier dealt with under the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, but the approach had changed.
The convict approached the apex court seeking premature release after his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, citing prolonged incarceration and satisfactory conduct in jail.
Justice Datta expressed reservations about convicts seeking remission soon after their death sentences are commuted. He noted that the Supreme Court has commuted death sentences to life imprisonment on grounds including delay, reformation, young age and other mitigating factors, but said this approach was being taken for granted.
The court observed that such leniency could dilute the deterrent effect of stringent punishment and have unintended consequences for law and order.
The Bench also said cases that earlier attracted the death penalty under the rarest of rare doctrine were now being routinely commuted, following which convicts sought premature release.
The court stressed that commutation itself was an act of leniency and could not automatically result in further leniency through early release.
It sought details of the actual period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and a detailed jail conduct report from the state.
The Bench said it would examine whether premature release could be granted in cases where a death sentence had already been commuted as an act of leniency and whether further remission would erode public confidence.
The case has been posted for further hearing after the state files its affidavit. The observations were oral and made during the hearing.