Karnataka High Court Commutes Death Penalty Based on Arguments by NLS Faculty Member
September 7, 2023
NLS faculty and Director – Clinics, Ragini Ahuja, successfully represented a 70-year-old death row convict in the Karnataka High Court whose case involved undue delay and substantial procedural lapses in adjudication of his mercy petition while being in illegal solitary confinement for over a decade. Based on the arguments presented by Ragini, the High Court on August 17, 2023, commuted Saibanna’s death sentence to a sentence of imprisonment for life.
In this interview, Ragini shares more details about this case and the arguments she presented in Court.
On the background of this case:
Saibanna was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 303 IPC (Punishment for murder by life-convict) and sentenced to death even though Section 303 IPC was struck down as unconstitutional in the case of Mithu vs. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277. Despite this error, a division bench of the High Court of Karnataka upheld his conviction. However it delivered a split verdict on sentence with one judge opining that the case was rarest of rare and deserved death sentence while the brother judge opined that the case had mitigating circumstances including the accused being remorseful as he had tried to commit suicide right after the incident.
On reference, this case was placed before a third judge who held that the accused deserved the death sentence and accordingly the High Court of Karnataka upheld his sentence of death. The Supreme Court of India also dismissed his appeal and upheld his conviction and sentence of death despite him being charged and convicted under a provision of law that was declared unconstitutional.
After the judicial determination was over, Saibanna filed a mercy petition in 2005 before the Governor of Karnataka and President of India seeking commutation of his death sentence. However, after undue delay of more than 7 years, his mercy petition was rejected in 2013.
Thereafter, a writ petition was filed on his behalf in 2013 in the Karnataka High Court challenging the rejection of his mercy petition and execution of his death sentence on the grounds of three supervening circumstances (that arise after conviction) namely:
- delay in adjudication of mercy petition,
- over a decade long illegal solitary confinement, and
- procedural lapses in adjudication of the mercy petition that vitiate its rejection
On the arguments presented in Court, and observations made by the High Court:
The Writ Petition was heard by a division bench of the Karnataka High Court, consisting of Justices G. Narendar and C.M. Poonacha.
Arguments on Delay:
The division bench accepted the arguments that
- Article 21 rights exist not only during trial but till the stage of execution and that supervening circumstances that violate this constitutional guarantee must entitle a death row convict to commutation of his death sentence.
- Unjustified and inordinate delay of over 7 years in adjudication of mercy petition causes trauma and torture impermissable under law and must result in commutation of death sentence.
The Court observed:
“43. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions (referred to supra) has clearly analyzed, evaluated and considered the effect of delay in considering the mercy petition and has held that an un-explained and in-ordinate delay would inhere a death row convict to seek for commutation of the sentence. The facts and circumstances detailed above would clearly point to delay, which in our opinion, is an in-ordinate one. The delay not only being inordinate, the pleadings do not disclose any explanation much less any worth-while explanation for the delay. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that the delay in consideration of the mercy petition is an inordinate and unexplained delay and the same inheres a right in the petitioner to seek commutation of the death sentence.”
Arguments on illegal solitary confinement:
My argument was that although death row convicts could be confined apart from other prisoners, as per Section 30 of the Prisons Act 1894, such separation would arise only after the sentence of death was final i.e. after rejection of mercy petition and even then, such confinement would have to follow the law laid down in Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration 1978 AIR 1675. This judgement held that death row prisoners could be kept apart from other prisoners but within the same cell.
In the present case Saibanna was segregated much before his sentence of death was final and such segregation was in a cell where he was housed alone, contrary to the law in Batra. Such separate confinement was in the nature of additional punishment not sanctioned by law. It inflicted immense torture on him thereby violating his rights under A. 21 of the constitution entitling him to commutation of his sentence of death.
To verify whether Saibanna had indeed been kept in illegal solitary confinement, the Court directed the jail to file a report on the conditions of the Petitioner’s incarceration. On the basis of this report, the Court observed:
“46. Thus, the Report would unambiguously demonstrate that between 10.01.2003 to 20.05.2019, the petitioner has been kept in a Single Cell in the Block called Anderi Division of the Belagavi Prison. Even on the face of it, the petitioner has undergone singular cell confinement for almost 16 long years. The document would show that he has been permitted to come out to the yard in the morning, wash his clothes but neither the pleadings nor the documents demonstrate that he was allowed to mingle with other prisoners.
- The report unequivocally demonstrates that petitioner has been made to suffer a singular cell confinement/solitary confinement without the sanction of law….”
High Court’s Decision
Finally, on a cumulative reading of the supervening circumstances, the Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Court observed:
“49. In view of our above discussion and taking into consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for more than 30 long years, in our view, ends of justice would be met if the death sentence awarded to the petitioner is commuted to one of Life imprisonment, with liberty to move an application for remission.”
To view the full judgement, click here.
On this case being taught at NLS:
This case and branch of jurisprudence was previously taught in my clinical elective course on ‘Defending Capital Punishment Cases’ as part of the curriculum on post conviction proceedings in death row cases. These hearings were attended by some students from the course and members of NLSIU’s Legal Services Clinic.
It is our endeavour to bridge the gap between academics and practice through clinical legal education that provides students an opportunity to witness how cases taught in a classroom are actually litigated in real life.