In the realm of criminal justice, the delicate balance between the rights of the accused and the societal need for closure is often a complex tightrope to navigate. The provision in the proposed Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill, 2023 barring judicial reviews of mercy petitions for death row convicts has garnered both support and dissent. As we dissect the contours of this debate, it becomes evident that there are compelling reasons to endorse this legislation, given the exhaustive legal journey undertaken by convicts and the need for finality in the pursuit of justice. It is essential to understand that by the time a mercy petition arrives on the President’s desk, it has endured rigorous scrutiny within the legal apparatus. The labyrinthine path to the Supreme Court, encompassing multiple tiers of hearings and appeals, ensures that every possible avenue for defence and redress is explored. Each case receives thorough evaluation by the apex court, which scrutinises evidence, procedure, and the broader principles of law.

This rigorous legal examination is the cornerstone of a fair and just judicial process. Nonetheless, the current system permits a scenario where convicts can once again seek refuge in the Supreme Court following the rejection of their mercy petitions by the President. This not only prolongs the process but can lead to a seemingly endless cycle of legal reviews that exacerbate the pain of victims’ families and hinder the efficient functioning of the judiciary. By curtailing this redundant cycle of judicial intervention, the proposed legislation aspires to inject a sense of finality and closure into a process that has already undergone exhaustive scrutiny. A significant facet of the argument in favour of this legislation is the preservation of the sanctity of judicial resources. The courts, particularly the Supreme Court, are entrusted with an array of pivotal cases that necessitate prompt attention.

Advertisement

Redundant legal reviews of mercy petitions post-Presidential decisions consume valuable time and energy that could be channelled towards addressing other pressing matters of justice. By placing a reasonable restriction on re-approaching the Supreme Court, the proposed legislation aligns with the judicious allocation of judicial resources. Furthermore, the legislation takes into account the psychological and emotional toll that prolonged legal battles can exact on victims’ families and society at large. The trauma endured by these families can be exacerbated when legal proceedings stretch on for years, rekindling painful memories and impeding the process of healing. By limiting the scope for multiple judicial reviews, the legislation acknowledges the broader societal implications of capital punishment cases and seeks to expedite the delivery of justice. The proposal is a well-calibrated measure that advances judicial efficiency and demonstrates sensitivity to the emotional well-being of victims’ families. It refrains from undermining the comprehensive legal processes already in place while aiming to bring a sense of closure and finality to a deeply intricate and often arduous legal journey.