Mercy petition

A mercy petition is a plea for clemency made to the President of India under Article 72 or to the Governor of a State under Article 161 of the Constitution, after the exhaustion of all judicial remedies including appeal, review, and curative petitions. It serves as the last resort for a condemned prisoner to seek commutation, remission, respite, reprieve, or pardon of the sentence. The petition invokes the executive’s prerogative to temper justice with mercy and to rectify potential miscarriages of justice within the criminal justice system.

A mercy petition is the request for clemency; a pardon is the outcome of that request.

Although the terms “clemency” and “mercy” are commonly used, they do not appear in the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code, or the Code of Criminal Procedure. Instead, these laws refer to specific forms of relief such as pardon, reprieve, respite, remission, suspension, and commutation. Each of these terms—appearing in Article 72(1)—signifies a distinct type of executive intervention that may reduce or modify a judicially imposed punishment. Collectively, they constitute the President’s pardoning powers, which may be classified into two categories:

(1) Full pardoning power (pardon) - which completely absolves the offence and its legal consequences, and

(2) Partial pardoning powers - encompassing reprieve, respite, remission, suspension, and commutation, each mitigating the punishment without erasing the conviction.

Official Definition of ‘Mercy Petition’

While no specific statutory provision under the pre-2023 criminal procedure explicitly governed mercy petitions in death sentence cases, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, did recognize the executive’s power to suspend, remit, or commute sentences under Sections 432 to 434. These provisions provided a procedural and legal foundation for the exercise of clemency powers by the “appropriate government.”

In contrast, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), for the first time, codifies the mercy petition process in express terms through Section 472, which lays down eligibility, procedure, and timelines for filing petitions before the Governor or the President.

‘Mercy Petition’ as defined in legislation(s)

Legal Provisions relating to the ‘Mercy Petition’

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Suspension and Remission of Sentences

Sec 432 CrPC empowers the appropriate government (Central or State, depending on the offence) to suspend the execution or remit any part of a sentence, with or without conditions. It also allows the government to consult the trial judge for an opinion before granting remission, and to revoke such relief if conditions are violated. In practice, this section formed the procedural basis for considering mercy or clemency pleas, even though the term “mercy petition” was not used.

Commutation of Sentences

Sec 433 CrPC, the government has the authority to commute a sentence without the consent of the convict. A sentence of death may be commuted to any other punishment provided under the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, a sentence of imprisonment for life may be reduced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or even to a fine. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment may be converted into simple imprisonment or fine, and a sentence of simple imprisonment may likewise be substituted with a fine.

Restriction on Remission in Heinous Offences

Section 433A limits the government’s remission powers in heinous offences punishable by death. A person sentenced to life imprisonment in such cases cannot be released before serving at least 14 years in prison.

Concurrent Powers of the Central Government and the State Government

Section 434 authorizes the Central Government to exercise the powers under Sections 432 and 433 in cases involving death sentences, even when such power ordinarily belongs to the State Government.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Section 472 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lays down the procedure for filing and processing mercy petitions in death sentence cases. It provides that a convict sentenced to death, or their legal heir or relative, may file a mercy petition within thirty days from the date on which the dismissal of an appeal, review, or special leave petition by the Supreme Court is communicated, or from the confirmation of the death sentence by the High Court and the expiry of the appeal period. The petition is to be addressed first to the Governor, and only upon its rejection or disposal may a subsequent petition be submitted to the President within sixty days. In cases involving multiple convicts arising from the same judgment, all mercy petitions must be filed within a common period of sixty days.

Upon receipt of the petition, the Central Government is required to seek the comments of the concerned State Government, examine the entire record, and forward its recommendation to the President within sixty days. The President’s decision, as per sub-section (7), is final and not open to judicial appeal. Furthermore, the order disposing of the mercy petition must be communicated to the concerned State Home Department and jail authorities within forty-eight hours of its issuance.

The Indian Constitution

Article 72

Article 72 of the Constitution of India empowers the President to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of an offence. This power extends to three categories of cases—(a) cases where the punishment or sentence is by a court-martial, (b) cases involving offences against laws to which the executive power of the Union extends, and (c) cases where the sentence is one of death. However, this authority is subject to certain limitations. The President’s power does not affect the internal powers of the Armed Forces under military law, nor does it curtail the Governor’s power to commute death sentences under Article 161.

Article 161

Article 161 confers upon the Governor of a State the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends. The scope of this power is similar in nature to that of the President but limited to offences falling within the State’s jurisdiction. The Governor’s power, however, cannot extend to matters under the Union’s executive authority and cannot override the laws made by Parliament.

‘Mercy Petition’ as defined in international instruments

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966

The foundational international recognition of the right to seek mercy arises from Article 6(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966, which states:

“Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.”

This provision establishes a right to clemency as a component of the right to life, ensuring that even after a lawful conviction and sentencing, the condemned individual retains access to mercy as a matter of human dignity and procedural fairness.

Asian Centre for Human Rights

International bodies, such as the AHRC, have recommended 10 point recommendations to guide the consideration of mercy petitions in India. These principles are as follows:

Principle 1. The consequences of inordinate and unexplained delay in the disposal of mercy petitions of condemned prisoners should be considered as grounds for granting mercy, i.e. the commutation of the death sentence into life imprisonment.

Principle 2. Possibility of reform of the condemned prisoner should be considered as a ground for granting mercy and that the State must prove that the condemned prisoner cannot be reformed.

Principle 3. A dissenting judgment at any stage of the proceeding before the Court should be a ground for granting mercy.

Principle 4. Denial of the right to appeal because of the enhancement of punishment by the Supreme Court in the form of death penalty should be a ground for granting mercy.

Principle 5. Conviction based on self-incrimination should be a ground for granting mercy. Principle 6. Inability to defend oneself by hiring own lawyer as reflected from appointment of amicus curiae or lawyers from legal aid services by the Courts in all stages of the proceedings should be a mitigating ground for granting mercy.

Principle 7. Conviction in cases declared as per incuriam should be a ground for granting mercy. Principle 8. Imposition of mandatory death penalty should be a ground for granting mercy. Principle 9. Death penalty imposed solely based on circumstantial evidence should be a ground for granting mercy.

Principle 10. Making orphan should be a ground for granting mercy.

‘Mercy Petition’ as defined in official document(s)

Guidelines for processing mercy petitions in death penalty cases issued by Jails Department, Govt. of Haryana (30th Sep 2025)

Issued under Section 472 BNSS 2023, the notification establishes a uniform framework for mercy petitions in death-penalty cases:

• Only after exhausting judicial remedies.
• Grounds include good conduct, mental or physical health, age, humanitarian reasons, miscarriage of justice, rehabilitation.
• Superintendent Jail must verify and forward the complete dossier with conduct and medical reports.
• A Dedicated Cell (Special/Joint Secretary – Jails; nominee of Ld. L.R.; Chief Probation Officer; Superintendent) ensures prompt processing.
• Filing of a petition automatically stays execution.
• All records are to be kept confidential.
• Standardised annexures prescribe formats for petitions, verification, and review by the Governor and President.

Guidelines for protecting the interests of death row convicts issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India (4th Feb 2014)

Following Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1, the MHA directed all States/UTs to safeguard death-row convicts’ rights by:

• Prohibiting solitary confinement prior to rejection of mercy petition (Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn., (1978) 4 SCC 494);
• Providing legal aid at all stages, including after rejection;
• Communicating rejection of mercy petitions by Governor/President in writing to the convict and family;
• Ensuring at least 14 days between rejection of mercy and execution;
• Mandating mental-health evaluations, final family meeting, and post-mortem examination after execution.

Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, in response to Question No. 2280 raised in the Rajya Sabha (12 February 2014), regarding clemency to death row convicts

The Minister of State (Home Affairs) clarified that no rigid rules exist due to the diversity of cases; nonetheless, clemency may be justified on grounds such as -

1. Age, sex, or mental deficiency of the accused;
2. Doubtful or conflicting evidence;
3. Availability of fresh evidence;
4. Reversal of acquittal or enhancement of sentence on appeal;
5. Split judicial opinion;
6. Difficulty in apportioning responsibility among co-accused; and
7. Prolonged delay in investigation, trial, or execution.

‘Mercy Petition’ as defined in government report(s)

262nd Law Commission Report, 2015

The exercise of mercy petitions has been examined in official government reports, most notably in the 262nd Law Commission Report on the Death Penalty (2015), which recommends the abolition of death penalty for all offences except those related to terrorism. . The report analyses the clemency process as a critical safeguard within the criminal justice system, highlighting the President’s and Governors’ discretionary powers in commuting or granting reprieves to death row convicts. It identifies systemic issues such as inconsistent timelines, lack of transparency, over-dependence on ministerial advice, and potential arbitrariness in decision-making. The report underscores that delays in the consideration of mercy petitions can violate fundamental rights, particularly Article 21, and recommends procedural reforms, including the establishment of clear timelines, publication of anonymised statistics, and institutional mechanisms to assist executive authorities in making objective and reasoned decisions.

Report issued by Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System, 2003

The Committee observed that the powers of pardon, remission, and commutation form an essential part of the executive’s prerogative and serve as a reformative element within the criminal justice process. It clarified that even if a punishment of life imprisonment without remission or commutation were to be introduced, such a measure would not curtail the constitutional powers of the President and the Governor to grant pardon, reprieve, respite, or remission of punishment. Further, the report explained that the exercise of these powers is not an act of condoning the offence but rather a means to lessen the rigour or length of imprisonment in deserving cases.

‘Mercy Petition’ as defined in case law(s)

Scope and Nature of Executive Clemency Powers

Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147

In this case, the Court clarified that powers under Articles 72 and 161 are not personal but must be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v Prem Raj (2003) 7 SCC 121

The Supreme Court clarified that ‘Reprieve’ means a stay of execution of sentence, a postponement of capital sentence. Respite means awarding a lesser sentence instead of the penalty prescribed in view of the fact that the accused has had no previous conviction. The power under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution is absolute and cannot be fettered by any statutory provision such as, Sections 432, 433 or 433-A of the Code or by any prison rules. But the President or the Governor, as the case may be, must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers.

Judicial Review of Mercy Decisions

Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147

The court held that the power under Articles 72 and 161 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review in cases of arbitrariness or mala fide exercise.

Kehar Singh v. Union of India, (1989) 1 SCC 204

The Supreme Court held that the President in exercise of power under Art. 72 is entitled to go into the merits of the case notwithstanding that it has been judicially concluded by the consideration given to it by the Supreme Court. The power under Art. 72 entitles the President to examine the record of evidence of the criminal case and to determine for himself whether the case is one describing the grant of the relief falling within that power. He can, on scrutiny of the evidence on record in the criminal case, come to a conclusion different from that recorded by the court in regard to the guilt of, and sentence imposed on, the accused. In doing so, the President does not amend or modify or supersede the judicial record. The judicial record remains in-tact, and undisturbed.

Epuru Sudhakar v. State of A.P., (2006) 8 SCC 161

The Court held that judicial review of the exercise of the pardoning power is possible, but only on limited grounds. These grounds include instances where the power has been exercised without application of mind, with mala fide intentions, or where relevant material was withheld from consideration.

Delay in Disposal of Mercy Petitions

Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 344

While the Court acknowledged that prolonged delays in executing death sentences are significant, it rejected the absolute rule that a delay exceeding two years automatically warrants the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment, reasoning that a uniform period was impractical and could be misused.

Shatrugan Chauhan v UoI (2014) 3 SCC 1

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of inordinate delays in the disposal of mercy petitions for death row convicts. The Court held that prolonged delays in deciding mercy pleas, particularly when caused by the executive, can cause immense mental agony to the convict, amounting to torture. Such delays could be grounds for commutation of death sentences to life imprisonment.

Mahendra Nath Das v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 253

This case dealt with the issue of excessive delay in the execution of a death sentence due to the prolonged processing of the convict's mercy petition. The Court observed that an undue delay in deciding a mercy plea, if it causes mental anguish and suffering to the convict, violates the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this case, Mahendra Nath Das’s mercy petition remained pending for over 12 years. The Court held that such an extraordinary delay rendered the death sentence inhumane and commuted it to life imprisonment. The decision reinforced the principle that procedural delays in mercy petitions should not undermine the dignity and rights of death row convicts, stressing that the executive must act with reasonable promptness in such matters.

State of Maharashtra v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade, 2024 INSC 947

The Supreme Court has emphasised that undue, unexplained, or inordinate delays in the execution of death sentences entitle convicts to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 or the High Court under Article 226. Article 21 protections extend to the execution stage, and prolonged suspense caused by delayed mercy petitions aggravates the convict’s suffering, highlighting the executive’s duty to act promptly under Articles 72 and 161. Mercy petitions must be promptly sent to the President’s or Governor’s Secretariat, with correspondence conducted digitally wherever possible. Sessions Courts are required to track pending appeals, review, curative, and mercy petitions, issue execution warrants immediately after all legal processes conclude, and provide convicts with notice and legal aid, maintaining a minimum 15-day gap before execution. The Court further mandated that judgments and warrants be forwarded to convicts, High Courts, and relevant Sessions Courts, and compliance reports be submitted by State Home departments within three months.

Procedural Fairness and Institutional Accountability

State of Maharashtra v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade, 2024 INSC 947

To ensure systematic and timely processing, the Court directed all State Governments and Union Territories to establish dedicated cells within the Home or Prison Departments, staffed with officers from the Law or Judiciary departments, responsible for collecting and forwarding detailed criminal, personal, and trial information to constitutional authorities.

Shatrugan Chauhan v UoI (2014) 3 SCC 1

The Court emphasized that even death row convicts are entitled to protection of their fundamental rights, including the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. It also laid down guidelines to ensure the expeditious disposal of mercy petitions and clarified that factors like the convict’s mental illness or solitary confinement should be considered when deciding on commutation.

Substantive Limits on Capital Punishment

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684

In 1980, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, but established important guardrails. “Judges”, the court said, “should never be bloodthirsty”, and the death penalty should not be awarded “save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed”, and all possible mitigating circumstances have been considered.

Types of Clemency

Pardon:

When the President pardons, both the sentence and the conviction of the convict completely absolve the sentences, punishments and disqualifications.

Respite:

When the President uses the pardoning power of ‘Respite’, he chooses to award a lesser sentence in place of one originally awarded to the convict. For example, due to some special fact, such as the physical disability of a convict or the pregnancy of a woman offender, the President can use this power.

Reprieve:

When the President chooses the pardoning power of ‘Reprieve’; he stays the execution of a sentence (especially that of death) for a temporary period. By doing this, he enables the convict to have time to seek pardon or commutation from him.

Remit:

When the President chooses the pardoning power of Remit, he acts to reduce the period of the sentence but the character of the sentence remains the same. For example, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years may be remitted to rigorous imprisonment for one year but the imprisonment remains rigorous.

Commute:

When the President chooses to use this pardoning power of ‘Commute’; he substitutes one form of punishment for a lighter form. For example, a death sentence may be commuted to rigorous imprisonment, which in turn may be commuted to simple imprisonment.

International Experience

USA:

Article II of the US Constitution grants the President the “Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment.” In the United States, courts have been cautious in interpreting the pardoning power where restrictions have been imposed on those who were pardoned. In Hoffa v. Saxbe, a condition imposed on a pardon was challenged as unconstitutional. The District Court ruled that the "framework of the constitutional system" limits the President's authority to impose and later enforce conditions on pardons. Apart from judicial scrutiny in this area, the power of pardon has been allowed to exercise freely.

UK:

In the United Kingdom, the Crown's exercise of mercy was originally established in the Middle Ages, with the infringement of the King's peace arising as a ground for criminal culpability. In Thomas v. SorrelL, the maxim non potest rex gratiam facere cum injuria et damno aliorum, that is to say, ‘the King cannot confer a favour on one man to the injury and damage of others’, was applied. More so, where any right pardon, cannot affect it or take it away. At present, the monarch exercises the power on the advice of the Home Secretary.

Pakistan:

Article 45 of the Pakistan’s Constitution confers the right to the President an absolute power to reprieve, respite & remit, suspend or commute any sentence passed by any court, tribunal or authority. The power cannot be questioned.

Bangladesh:

Article 49 of the Bangladesh's Constitution provides mercy power to the President. Apart from constitutional provisions, the government may suspend, remit or commute the sentence of a person under the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898. However, the President cannot exercise the prerogative power independently and it has to be done in consultation with or in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister through the Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs.

Appearance in Database

Official Database maintained by the Government of India

^{Official digital repository hosted on the Rashtrapati Bhavan website, documenting the status and outcomes of mercy petitions submitted to the President of India under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution. The database provides case-wise details such as the name of the convict, date of the Supreme Court judgment/review/curative decision, date of recommendation received in the President’s Secretariat from the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the date of final disposal.}

rashtrapati

^{As of October 2025, the portal does not reflect recent data or updates on mercy petition statistics or disposal timelines. The most recent available information corresponds to earlier years, suggesting that the database has not been actively maintained or updated in recent years.}

Research

Court of Last Resort: A Study of Constitutional Clemency for Capital Crimes in India by Centre for the Study of Law and Governance, JNU (2009)

This working paper by Bikram Jeet Batra, published by the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance, Jawaharlal Nehru University, examines the constitutional foundations, evolution, and practical functioning of mercy petitions in India. It situates clemency within the broader political and institutional framework of governance, tracing its colonial origins and constitutional development under Articles 72 and 161. The paper explores how mercy serves as the “court of last resort” for condemned prisoners and provides an in-depth analysis of executive decision-making, the President’s role, and the judiciary-executive interface. By engaging with archival sources and historical procedures, the research moves beyond the textual understanding of clemency provisions to uncover their administrative and political dimensions. While it provides a comprehensive historical and procedural analysis, it is limited by its pre-2010 temporal scope and does not engage with recent jurisprudence post-Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) or the evolving human rights discourse on death row practices.

The Status of Mercy Petitions in India by Asian Centre for Human Rights (2015)

This report, produced by the Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) under its National Campaign for Abolition of the Death Penalty in India (supported by the European Commission), critically analyses the functioning of the mercy petition system from a human rights perspective. It documents systemic violations of official instructions and guidelines for handling and deciding mercy petitions, such as failure to communicate rejections, suppression of material facts, and lack of due process. The study integrates data on over 5,000 mercy petitions since Independence and evaluates how executive arbitrariness, political considerations, and procedural lapses undermine constitutional safeguards under Articles 72 and 161. The report expands the discourse by proposing 10 human rights–based principles for reforming clemency practice, including delay as a ground for commutation, mental illness, and dissenting judicial opinions as mitigating factors. While ACHR’s research provides empirical evidence and policy recommendations, it largely adopts an advocacy-driven human rights lens and does not deeply explore the constitutional and institutional philosophy of clemency.

Challenges

There is no fixed statutory timeline for their disposal, leading to prolonged delays that often violate prisoners’ rights under Article 21. Judicial rulings have been inconsistent on this issue, with courts declining to prescribe a uniform time frame. The process also lacks transparency. Reasons for granting or rejecting petitions are rarely disclosed, resulting in arbitrariness and unequal treatment of similarly placed convicts. Moreover, although clemency powers are constitutionally vested in the President and Governors, in practice, decisions are made on the advice of the executive, compromising independence. Finally, the absence of digital tracking or centralized monitoring mechanisms further weakens accountability and oversight in the clemency process. ^[23]

Way Ahead

To address the systemic deficiencies in the clemency process, statutory or constitutional rules should be formulated to prescribe a clear procedure and definitive timeline for deciding mercy petitions. Convicts and their families must receive reasoned communication of outcomes to ensure transparency and accountability. Additionally, anonymised statistics on mercy petitions should be mandatorily published to provide public insight into the exercise of this power. To further safeguard against arbitrariness, independent advisory boards should be institutionalised to assist the President or Governor in objectively assessing petitions, thereby reinforcing the intended independence of the clemency mechanism and promoting fairness in its application.

Related Terms

Pardon · Reprieve · Respite · Remission · Commutation · Clemency · Death Sentence · Article 72 · Article 161.

References

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15272/1/the_code_of_criminal_procedure,_1973.pdf (accessed on 23/10/2025)

2. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Available at: https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/2023/Bharatiya_Nagarik_Suraksha_Sanhita,_2023.pdf (accessed on 23/10/2025).

3. Government of India, The Constitution of India. Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/19150/1/constitution_of_india.pdf (accessed on 23/10/2025).

4. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights (accessed on 23/10/2025).

5. Asian Centre for Human Rights, “The Status of Mercy Petitions in India,” p. 10. Available at: https://www.uncat.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/The-Status-of-Mercy-Petitions-in-India.pdf (accessed on 23/10/2025).

6. Government of Haryana, BNSS Notification, Official Records, document no. 472. Available at: https://homeharyana.gov.in/pdfs/LatestUpdates/472%20BNSS.pdf (accessed on 23/10/2025).

7. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Advisory on Safeguarding Rights of Death Row Convicts, Official Records, document no. 040214 (04/02/2014). Available at: https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2022-09/AdvisorySafeGuarding_040214_0%5B3%5D.pdf (accessed on 23/10/2025).

8. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2280, Official Records, 12/02/2014. Available at: https://xn--i1b5bzbybhfo5c8b4bxh.xn--11b7cb3a6a.xn--h2brj9c/MHA1/Par2017/pdfs/par2014-pdfs/rs-120214/2280.pdf (accessed on 23/10/2025).

9. Law Commission of India, The Death Penalty, Official Records, Report No. 262 (31/08/2015). Available at: https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report262.pdf (accessed on 23/10/2025).

10. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, August 2022. Available at: https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2022-08/criminal_justice_system%5B1%5D.pdf (accessed on 23/10/2025).

11. Supreme Court of India, Maru Ram Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Anr (1981). Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1222748/ (accessed on 23/10/2025).

12. Supreme Court of India, State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Prem Raj (2003). Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b48d37607dba348fff1e13 (accessed on 23/10/2025).

13. Supreme Court of India, Kehar Singh and Another v. Union of India (1989). Available at: https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/view_judgment?id=MjM5NTM= (accessed on 23/10/2025).

14. Supreme Court of India, Epuru Sudhakar and Another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2006). Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae36e4b0149711413316 (accessed on 23/10/2025).

15. Supreme Court of India, Sher Singh & Others v. State of Punjab (1983). Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1166797/ (accessed on 23/10/2025).

16. Supreme Court of India, Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) . Available at: https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/41163.pdf (accessed on 23/10/2025).

17. Gauhati High Court, Mahendra Nath Das v. Union of India & Others (2012). Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b48d37607dba348fff1e13 (accessed on 23/10/2025).

18. Supreme Court of India, State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade & Anr. (2024). Available at: https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/State-of-Maharashtra-v-Pradeep-Yashwanth-Kokade_-C-issues-guidelines-for-speedy-execution-of-death-penalties.pdf (accessed on 23/10/2025).

19. Supreme Court of India, Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1166797/ (accessed on 23/10/2025).

20. Government of India, “STATEMENT OF MERCY PETITION CASES – REJECTED”. Available at: https://www.rashtrapatibhavan.gov.in/sites/default/files/bills_assented/mercy_petition_1.pdf (accessed on 23/10/2025).

21. Asian Centre for Human Rights, The Status of Mercy Petitions in India. Available at: https://www.uncat.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/The-Status-of-Mercy-Petitions-in-India.pdf (accessed on 23/10/2025).

22. Bikram Jeet Batra, “Court” of Last Resort: A Study of Constitutional Clemency for Capital Crimes in India’, Work­ing Paper Series, Centre for the Study of Law and Governance, Jawaharlal Nehru University (CSLG/WP/11 – April 2009 [Reprint 2012]). Available at: https://www.jnu.ac.in/sites/default/files/u63/11-Court%20%28Bikram%29.pdf (accessed on 23/10/2025).

23. Poornima Sampath and Priyadarshini Narayanan, 'Mercy Petitions: Inadequacies in Practice’, National Law School of India Review (NLSIR), Vol.12, Issue1, 2000. Available at: https://repository.nls.ac.in/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1158&context=nlsir (accessed on 23/10/2025).

Contributors & review status

Curated / edited bynot yet recorded

Peer reviewpending

Project reviewpending

Expert reviewpending

Page created 2026-08-21  ·  Last updated 2026-08-22