IMPORTANT POINTS
Delay in deciding mercy petition and medical condition like insanity/mental illness/schizophrenia are supervening circumstances for commutation of death sentence.
IPC and non-IPC cases are not to be distinguished for commutation of death sentence.

JUDGMENT

P.Sathasivam, CJI. –

1) Navneet Kaur w/o Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, filed the present Curative Petition against the dismissal of Review Petition (Criminal) No.435 of 2013 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 146 of 2011 on 13.08.2013, wherein she prayed for setting aside the death sentence imposed upon Devender Pal Singh Bhullar by commuting the same to imprisonment for life on the ground of supervening circumstance of delay of 8 years in disposal of mercy petition.

2) Considering the limited issue involved, there is no need to traverse all the factual details. The brief background of the case is: By judgment dated 25.08.2001, Devender Pal Singh Bhullar was sentenced to death by the Designated Judge, Delhi. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 993 of 2001 before this Court and by judgment dated 22.03.2002, this Court confirmed the death sentence and dismissed his appeal. Against the dismissal of the appeal by this Court, the accused preferred Review Petition (Criminal) No. 497 of 2002, which was also dismissed by this Court on 17.12.2002.

3) Soon after the dismissal of the review petition, the accused submitted a mercy petition dated 14.01.2003 to the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution and prayed for commutation of his sentence. During the pendency of the petition filed under Article 72, he also filed Curative Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2003 which was also dismissed by this Court on 12.03.2003.

4) On 30.05.2011, a communication was sent from the Joint Secretary (Judicial) to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, stating that the President of India has rejected the mercy petition submitted on behalf of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar. The same was also communicated to the Superintendent, Central Jail No. 3, Tihar Jail, New Delhi on 13.06.2011.

5) On 24.06.2011, the wife of the accused (petitioner herein) preferred a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 146 of 2011 before this Court praying for quashing the communication dated 13.06.2011. By order dated 12.04.2013, this Court, after examining and analyzing the materials brought on record by the respondents, arrived at the conclusion that there was an unreasonable delay of 8 years in disposal of mercy petition, which is one of the grounds for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment as per the established judicial precedents. However, this Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that when the accused is convicted under TADA, there is no question of showing any sympathy or considering supervening circumstances for commutation of death sentence.

6) Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the wife of the accused preferred Review Petition being (Criminal) No. 435 of 2013 which was also dismissed by this Court on 13.08.2013. Subsequently, the wife of the accused, petitioner herein has filed the above Curative Petition for consideration by this Court.

7) Heard Mr. KTS Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General for India appearing on behalf of the respondents.

8) Very recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 55 of 2013 Etc., titled Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2014 (1) SCALE 437, by order dated 21.01.2014, commuted the sentence of death imposed on the petitioners therein to imprisonment for life which has a crucial bearing for deciding the petition at hand. In the aforesaid verdict, this Court validated the established principle and held that unexplained/unreasonable/inordinate delay in disposal of mercy petition is one of the supervening circumstances for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment.

9) While deciding the aforesaid issue in the above decision, the Bench was simultaneously called upon to decide a specific issue viz., whether is there a rationality in distinguishing between an offence under Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (P