NAVNEET KAURversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

                       [2014) 4 S.C.R. 1138


A                        NAVNEET KAUR
                                 v.
               STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
           (Curative Petition (Criminal) No. 88 of 2013)
                                  IN
B          (Review Petition (Criminal) No. 435 of 2013)
                                  IN
             (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 146 of 2011)
                         MARCH 31, 2014
C   [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., R.M. LODHA, H.L. DAITU AND
          SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]

        Sentence! Sentencing - Commutation of death sentence
  to life imprisonment - Petitioner's husband convicted under
D TADA and sentenced to death - Plea for commuting the death
  sentence to life imprisonment on ground of supervening
  circumstance of delay of 8 years in disposal of mercy petition
  - Held: Insanity/mental illness/schizophrenia is also one of the
  supervening circumstances for commutation of death
E sentence to life imprisonment - Petitioner's husband suffering
  from acute mental illness and cannot be executed with the
  said health condition - Death sentence imposed on him
  commuted into life imprisonment both on the ground of
  unexplained! inordinate delay of 8 years in disposal of mercy
F petition and on the ground of insanity - Terrorism and
  Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act - Mercy Petition.

       The petitioner's husband was convicted under the
  Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act
  (TADA) and sentenced to death by the trial court. He
G preferred appeal before this Court which confirmed the
  death sentence. The petitioner's husband then preferred
  Review Petition which was also dismissed. Soon after
  dismissal of the review petition, he submitted a mercy
  petition dated 14.01.2003 to the President of India under
H                            1138
       NAVNEET KAUR v. STATE OF NCT OF                   1139
                DELHI & ANR.
Article 72 of the Constitution and prayed for commutation        A
of his sentence. During pendency of the mercy petition,
he also filed Curative Petition which was also dismissed
by this Court.

    On 30.05.2011, the President of India rejected the
mercy petition submitted on behalf of the petitioner's           8
husband. The same was also communicated to the Jail
Superintendent on 13.06.2011. On 24.06.2011, the wife of
the accused (petitioner herein) preferred a Writ Petition
before this Court praying for quashing the
communication dated 13.06.2011. This Court dismissed             C
the writ petition. Review Petition thereagainst was also
dismissed.

     Subsequently, the petitioner filed the instant Curative
Petition praying for setting aside the death sentence            o
imposed upon her husband by commuting the same to
imprisonment for. life on the ground of supervening
circumstance of delay of 8 years in disposal of mercy
petition.

    Disposing of the curative petition, the Court·               E

     HELD: 1.1. Very recently, a three-Judge Bench of this
Court, in the Shatrughan Chauhan case, commuted the
sentence of death imposed on the petitioners therein to
imprisonment for life which has a crucial bearing for            F
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.          G
[Para 8) [1142-G-H; 1143-A-E]

    1.2. In addition, it is clear from letter dated 08.02.2014
received by the Registry on 12.02.2014 from the Institute
of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, that the
                                                                 H
    1140    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A accused herein (i.e. the petitioner's husband) was
  examined by the Standing Medical Board on 05.02.2014.
  The report signed by the Director & Chairman as well as
  four Mem!Jers of the Medical Board clearly shows that he
  is suffering from acute mental illness. [Para 12) [1145-E;
B 1146-C]

       1.3. The three-Judge Bench in Shatrughan Chauhan
  held that insanity/mental illness/schizophrenia is also one
  of the supervening circumstances for commutation of
  death sentence to life imprisonment. By applying the
C principle enunciated in Shatrughan Chauhan, the
  petitioner's husband cannot be executed with the said
  health condition. It is deemed fit to commute the death
  sentence imposed on him into life imprisonment both on
  the ground of unexplained/inordinate delay of 8 years in
D disposal of mercy petition and on the ground of insanity.
  [Paras 13, 14] [1146-D-F]

        Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. vs. Umon of India & Ors.
    2014 (1) SCALE 437 - held applicable.
E       Triveniben VS. State of Gujarat (1988} 4 sec 57 4;
    Devender Pal Singh Bhullar vs. State (NCT) of Delhi (2013)
    6 sec 195 - referred to .
                        .Case Law Reference:
F       2014 (1) SCALE 437       held applicable        Para 8
        (1988) 4 sec 574         referred to            Para 10
        (2013) 6 sec 195         referred to            Para 11
G      INHERENT JURISDICTION : Curative Petiton (Crl.) No. 88
• of 2013.

                                   IN

        Review Petition (Crl.) No. 435 of 2013.
H
        NAVNEET KAUR v. STATE OF NCT OF                    1141
                 DELHI & ANR.
                                 IN                                 A
    Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 146 of 2011.

    G.E. Vahanvati, AG, Sidharth Luthra, ASG, KTS Tulsi, Raj
Kamal, Niraj Gupta, Gaurang Vardhan, Paramjeet Singh,
Anoopam Prasad, Tara Narula, Aadil Boparai, Meenakshi               B
Grover, Supriya Juneja, D.S. Mahra, for the appearing parties.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. 1. Navneet Kaur w/o Devender Pal          C
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                 D
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           E
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        F
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          G
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.                                           H
    1142    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A       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
B communicated to the Superintendent, Central Jail No. 3, Tihar
  Jail, New Delhi on 13.06.2011.

        5. On 2~.06.2011, the wife of the accused (petiti.oner
  herein) preferred a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 146 of 2011
C 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
D 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.
E
        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
F 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
G 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,
H by order dated 21.01.2014, commuted the sentence of death
  NAVNEET KAUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & 1143
          ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
imposed on the petitioners therein to imprisonment for life         A
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             B
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            C
distinguishing between an offence under Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act for
considering the supervening circumstance for commutation of
death sentence to life impri?onment, which was the point of law
decided in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 146 of 2011.
                                                                    D
     10. The larger Bench in Shatrughan Chauhan (supra),
after taking note of various aspects including the constitutional
right under Article 21 as well as the decision rendered by the
Constitution Bench in Triveniben vs. State of Gujarat (1988)
4 sec 574, held:                                                    E
    "57) From the analysis of the arguments of both the
    counsel, we are of the view that only delay which could not
    have been avoided even if the matter was proceeded with
    a sense of urgency or was caused in essential
    preparations for execution of sentence may be the relevant      F
    factors under such petitions in Article 32. Considerations
    such as the gravity of the crime, extraordinary cruelty
    involved therein or some horrible consequences for society
    caused by the offence are not relevant after the Constitution
    Bench ruled in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980)          G
    2 SCC 684 that the sentence of death can only be
    imposed in the rarest of rare cases. Meaning. of course,
    all death sentences imposed are impliedly the most
    heinous and barbaric and rarest of its kind. The legal effect
    of the extraordinary depravity of the offence exhausts itself   H
    1144   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A      when court sentences the person to death for that offence.
       Law does not prescribe an additional period of
       imprisonment in addition to the sentence of death for any
       such exceptional depravity involved in the offence.

       58) As rightly pointed out by Mr. Ram Jethmalani, it is open
B
       to the legislature in its wisdom to decide by enacting an
       appropriate law that a certain fixed period of imprisonment
       in addition to the sentence of death can be imposed in
       some well defined cases but the result cannot be
       accomplished by a judicial decision alone. The
c      unconstitutionality of this additional incarceration is itself
       inexorable and must not be treated as dispensable through
       a judicial decision."
             ***                     ***               ***
D
       "64) In the light of the same, we are of tbe view that the
       ratio laid down in Devender Pal Singh Bhullar (supra) is
       per incuriam. There is no dispute that in the same decision
       this Court has accepted the ratio enunciated in Triveniben
       (supra) (Constitution Bench) and also noted some other
E
       judgments following the ratio laid down in those cases that
       unexplained long delay may be one of the grounds for
       commutation of sentence of death into life imprisonment.
       There is no good reason to disqualify all TADA cases as
       a class from relief on account of delay in' execution of
F      death sentence. Each case requires consideration on its
       own facts."
             ***                     ***               ***

G      "70 Taking guidance from the above principles and in the
       light of the ratio enunciated in Triveniben (Supra), we are
       of the view that unexplained delay is one of the grounds
       for commutation of sentence of death into life imprisonment
       and the said supervening circumstance is applicable to all
       types of cases including the offences under TADA The only
H
  NAVNEET KAUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & 1145
          ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
    aspect the Courts have to satisfy is that the delay must be     A
    unreasonable and unexplained or inordinate at the hands
    of the executive. The argument of Mr. Luthra, learned ASG
    that a distinction can be drawn between IPC and non-IPC
    offences since the nature of the offence is a relevant factor
    is liable to be rejected at the outset. In view of our          B
    conclusion, we are unable to share the views expressed
    in Devender Pal Singh Bhullar (supra)."

      11. Learned Attorney General, taking note of the conclusion
arrived at in Shatrughan Chauhan (supra) wherein this Court         C
held that the ratio laid down in Devender Pal Singh Bhullar
vs. State (NCT) of Delhi (2013) 6 SCC 195 is per incuriam,
fairly admitted that applying the said principle as enunciated
in Shatrughan Chauhan (supra), death sentence awarded to
Devender Pal Singh Bhullar is liable to be commuted to life
imprisonment. We appreciate the rationale stand taken by            D
learned Attorney General and accept the same.

     12. In addition, it is also brought to our notice by letter
dated 08.02.2014, which was received by the Registry on
12.02.2014 from the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied         E
Sciences, that the accused Devender Pal Singh Bhullar was
examined by the Standing Medical Board on 05.02.2014 and
the Board opined as under:

    "1.The patient has been diagnosed with Severe
    Depression with Psychotic features (Treatment Refractory
                                                                    F
    Depression) with Hypertension with Dyslipidemia with
    Lumba-cervical Spondylosis with Mild Prostatomegaly.

    2. He is currently receiving Anti-Depressant, Anti-
    Psychotic,     Anti-anxiety,       Anti-Hypertensives,          G
    Hypolipedemic, Anit-Convulsant (for Neuropathic pain) and
    Antacid drugs in adequate doses along with supportive
    psychotherapy and physiotherapy.

    3. Patient has shown partial and inconsistent response to
                                                                    H
    1146     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014) 4 S.C.R.


A       the treatment with significant fluctuations in the severity of
        his clinical condition.

        4.The treatment comP,rising of various combinations of
        pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments
B       have brought about partial and inconsistent improvement
        in his clinical condition in the last three years of
        hospitalization. The scope for effective treatment options
        is limited and thereby the chances of his recovery remain
        doubtful in the future course of his illness".

C The above report has been signed by the Director & Chairman
  as well as four Members of the Medical Board. The report
  clearly shows that he is suffering from acute mental illness.

         13. The three-Judge Bench in Shatrughan Chauhan
o   (supra) held that insanity/mental illness/schizophrenia is also
    one of the supervening circumstances for commutation of death
    sentence to life imprisonment. By applying the principle
    enunciated in Shatrughan Chauhan (supra), the accused
    cannot be executed with the said health condition.
E         14. In the light of the above discussion and also in view of
  the ratio laid down in Shatrughan Chauhan (supra), we deem
  it fit to commute the death sentence imposed on Devender Pal
  Singh Bhullar into life imprisonment both on the ground of
  unexplained/inordinate delay of 8 years in disposal of mercy
F petition and on the ground of insanity. To this extent, the
  Curative Petition stands allowed.
    Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                           Petition disposed of.