Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Writ Petition (Crl.), 88 of 2015, Judgment Date: May 27, 2015

The present writ petitions are filed on the allegations that on  21.05.2015,
death warrants have been issued by the learned  Sessions  Judge,  which  are
impermissible inasmuch as  various  remedies  which  are  available  to  the
convicts, even after the dismissal of the appeals by this Court,  are  still
open and yet to be exercised by them.  It is submitted that  these  convicts
can file review petition seeking review of the  judgment  dated  15.05.2015.
They also have the right to file mercy petitions to the  Governor  of  Uttar
Pradesh and  to  the  President  of  India.   In  these  circumstances,  the
execution of the death warrants within six days  of  the  dismissal  of  the
Criminal Appeals is challenged as illegal and contrary to the provisions  of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Once we recognize this aspect of dignity of human being,  it  does  not  end
with the confirmation of death sentence, but goes beyond and  remains  valid
till such a convict meets his/her destiny. Therefore, the  process/procedure
from confirmation of death sentence by the highest Court till the  execution
of the said sentence, the convict is to be treated  with  human  dignity  to
the extent which is reasonable and permissible in law.
This right to human dignity has many elements.  First  and  foremost,  human
dignity is the dignity of each human being  'as  a  human  being'.   Another
element, which needs to be highlighted, in the context of the present  case,
is that human dignity is infringed if a person's life,  physical  or  mental
welfare is armed.  It is in this sense torture, humiliation, forced  labour,
etc. all infringe on human dignity.  It is in this context  many  rights  of
the accused derive from his dignity as a human  being.   These  may  include
the presumption that every person  is  innocent  until  proven  guilty;  the
right of the accused to a fair trial as  well  as  speedy  trial;  right  of
legal aid, all part of human dignity.  Even after conviction, when a  person
is spending prison life, allowing humane  conditions  in  jail  is  part  of
human dignity.  Prisons reforms or Jail reforms measures to make convicts  a
reformed person so that they are able to lead normal life and assimilate  in
the society, after serving the jail term, are  motivated  by  human  dignity
jurisprudence.
Though in the  context  of
jail conditions for those prisoners sentenced to death, the Court held  that
putting them in solitary confinement  was  impermissible  and  provision  to
this effect was unconstitutional and violative of a  prisoner's  fundamental
rights under Article 21, 20(2), 19 and 14 of the  Constitution.   The  Court
held that prisoner in jail still retains his  fundamental  rights.   
Thus, we hold that condemned prisoners also have  a  right  to  dignity  and
execution of death sentence cannot be carried out in  a  arbitrary,  hurried
and secret manner  without  allowing  the  convicts  to  exhaust  all  legal
remedies.
Since we find that the death warrants were signed by the Sessions  Judge  in
a haste, without waiting for the exhaustion of  the  aforesaid  remedies  on
the part of the convicts, the same are hereby quashed and set aside.
 
 
 
 
 

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

                   WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 88 OF 2015


SHABNAM                                                  .....PETITIONER(S)          

                               VERSUS                                      

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                   .....RESPONDENT(S)            

                                   W I T H
                   WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 89 OF 2015


                                  O R D E R


A.K. SIKRI, J.
                 Rule.
Ms. Pinky Anand, learned ASG, accepts notice on behalf  of  Union  of  India
and Ms. Pragati Neekhra, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of  State
of Uttar Pradesh.

With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties,  we  have
taken up these petitions for final hearing and propose to dispose  of  these
writ petitions by this order.

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 88  of  2015  is  filed  by  Shabnam  and  Writ
Petition (Criminal) 89 of 2015 is filed by National Law  University,  Delhi,
espousing the cause of Salim.  Both Shabnam and Salim (hereinafter  referred
to as, “the convicts”) were co-accused in a  murder  case,  that  was  tried
against them on the allegations that they had  committed  murders  of  seven
persons who were the members of  Shabnam's  family  during  the  intervening
night of 14th and 15th April, 2008.  They were tried together and after  the
trial, the learned Sessions Court returned with  the  finding  holding  them
guilty of the said murders, for  which  they  were  charged  and  pronounced
death sentence on both these  convicts  vide  Judgment  and  Sentence  dated
15.07.2010, subject to confirmation by the High Court.

The High Court of  Allahabad  confirmed  the  death  sentence  of  both  the
convicts vide Judgment and order dated 26.04.2013. The Judgment of the  High
Court was challenged in this Court and on 15.05.2015,  the  appeals  of  the
convicts were dismissed by  this  Court  as  well,  thereby  confirming  the
conviction as well as sentence of death imposed on them.

The present writ petitions are filed on the allegations that on  21.05.2015,
death warrants have been issued by the learned  Sessions  Judge,  which  are
impermissible inasmuch as  various  remedies  which  are  available  to  the
convicts, even after the dismissal of the appeals by this Court,  are  still
open and yet to be exercised by them.  It is submitted that  these  convicts
can file review petition seeking review of the  judgment  dated  15.05.2015.
They also have the right to file mercy petitions to the  Governor  of  Uttar
Pradesh and  to  the  President  of  India.   In  these  circumstances,  the
execution of the death warrants within six days  of  the  dismissal  of  the
Criminal Appeals is challenged as illegal and contrary to the provisions  of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Notice of these petitions was issued to the Union of India  as  well  as  to
the State of Uttar Pradesh on 25.05.2015.  Ms.  Pinky  Anand,  learned  ASG,
has appeared on behalf of the  Union  of  India  and  Ms.  Pragati  Neekhra,
learned counsel, has appeared on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Ms. Pinky Anand, learned ASG, has brought to  our  notice  the  instructions
issued  by  the  Ministry  of  Home  Affairs,  Government  of  India,  which
delineates the procedure regarding petitions for  mercy  in  death  sentence
cases.   She  has  referred  to  the  following  portion   from   the   said
instructions which impose certain duties on the Superintendent  of  Jail  in
connection with petitions for mercy from or on behalf  of  the  convicts  in
sentence of death, paragraph (II) thereof reads as under:
“On receipt of the intimation of the dismissal by the Supreme Court  of  the
appeal or the application for special leave to appeal to it lodged by or  on
behalf of the convict, in case the convict concerned has  made  no  previous
petition for mercy, the Jail Superintendent shall forthwith inform him  (the
convict) that if he desires to submit a petition  for  mercy  it  should  be
submitted in writing within seven days of the date of such intimation.”


She fairly stated that the death warrants would not be executed  immediately
and the procedure laid  down  as  per  the  aforesaid  instructions  of  the
Ministry of Home Affairs shall be followed.  The  learned  counsel  for  the
State of Uttar Pradesh  also  informed  this  Court  that  after  the  death
warrants  dated  21.05.2015  issued  by  the  learned  Sessions  Judge  were
received by the Superintendent of Jail,  the  Superintendent  of  Jail  sent
these death warrants back to the learned Sessions Judge  pointing  out  that
the warrants were defective as the date and time of execution of  the  death
sentence was not affixed thereupon.

The learned senior counsel appearing  for  the  petitioners,  on  the  other
hand, submitted that merely following the  procedure  as  contained  in  the
instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs would not  suffice.   It
was the submission of Mr. Anand Grover, learned senior  counsel,  that  this
procedure is applicable in respect of petitions for mercy.

On the other hand, in so far as the present case is concerned, the stage  of
petition for mercy has not yet come inasmuch as the convicts have  right  to
file an application for review in this Court seeking review of the  Judgment
dated 15.05.2015,  vide  which,  the  appeals  of  both  the  convicts  were
dismissed.  He has also drawn our attention to the Judgment of the  Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a matter titled as Peoples'  Union  for
Democratic Rights (PUDR) v. Union of India & Ors.[1]  He has submitted  that
in the said case, the High Court has mandated the following procedure  which
has to be followed before the execution of  the  death  sentence.  The  said
portion from the judgment is extracted below:
“We are  affirmatively  of  the  view  that  in  a  civilized  society,  the
execution of the sentence  of  death  cannot  be  carried  out  in  such  an
arbitrary manner, keeping the prisoner in the dark and without allowing  him
recourse and information.  Essential safeguards must be observed.   Firstly,
the principles of natural justice  must  be  read  into  the  provisions  of
Sections 413 and 414 of Cr. P. C. and sufficient notice ought  to  be  given
to the convict before the issuance of a warrant of  death  by  the  sessions
court that would enable the convict to  consult  his  advocates  and  to  be
represented in the proceedings.  Secondly,  the  warrant  must  specify  the
exact date and time for execution and not a range of dates  which  places  a
prisoner in a state of uncertainty.  Thirdly, a reasonable  period  of  time
must elapse between the date of the order on the execution warrant  and  the
date fixed or appointed in  the  warrant  for  the  execution  so  that  the
convict will have a reasonable opportunity to pursue legal recourse  against
the warrant and to have a final meeting  with  the  members  of  his  family
before the date fixed for execution.  Fourthly,  a  copy  of  the  execution
warrant must be immediately supplied to  the  convict.   Fifthly,  in  those
cases, where a convict is not in a position to  offer  a  legal  assistance,
legal aid must be  provided.   These  are  essential  procedural  safeguards
which must be observed if the right to life under Article 21 is  not  to  be
denuded of its meaning and content.”


He also pointed out that this Court has  laid  down  several  guidelines  to
govern cases involving capital punishment in the case of Shatrughan  Chauhan
v. Union of India & Ors.[2]

In the present case, we find that this Court pronounced the  judgment  dated
15.05.2015  confirming  the  death  penalty  and  within  six  days  of  the
dismissal of the criminal appeals  filed  by  these  convicts,  the  learned
Sessions Judge issued the death warrants on  21.05.2015.   This  is  clearly
impermissible  and   unwarranted   for   various   reasons,   as   discussed
hereinafter:

(I)   First and foremost reason is that  the  convicts  have  not  exhausted
their judicial and administrative remedies, which are  still  open  to  them
even if their appeals  in  the  highest  Court  have  failed  affirming  the
imposition of death penalty.  Those appeals were  filed  via  the  route  of
Article 136 of the Constitution.  However, law gives  such  persons  another
chance, namely, to seek review of the orders so passed, by means  of  filing
of  review  petition.   It  is  to  provided  under  Article  137   of   the
Constitution. The limitation of  30  days  is  prescribed  for  filing  such
review petitions.  We have to emphasize  at  this  stage  that  in  case  of
convicts facing death penalty, the remedy of  review  has  been  given  high
procedural sanctity.

            In the case of Mohd. Arif @Ashfaq v.  Registrar,  Supreme  Court
of India & Ors.[3], the Constitution Bench of this Court has laid down  that
the review petition in a case of death sentence shall be heard in  the  open
court by giving an  opportunity  to  the  review  petitioner  to  make  oral
submissions, unlike other review petitions which are decided  by  the  Court
by circulation in Chambers.  Not only this, such a review petition is to  be
heard by a Bench consisting of minimum three Judges.   Following  discussion
from the said Constitutional Bench judgment will bring home  the  importance
which we are attaching to these review petitions:
“30...A sentence is a compound of any factors, including the nature  of  the
offence  as  well  as  the  circumstances  extenuating  or  aggravating  the
offence.   A  large  number  of  aggravating  circumstances  and  mitigating
circumstances have been pointed out in Bachan  Singh  v.  State  of  Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 684, SCC at pp. 749-50, paras 202 & 206, that  a  Judge  should
take into account when awarding the death sentence.  Again, as  pointed  out
above, apart from the fact  that  these  lists  are  only  illustrative,  as
clarified in Bachan Singh itself, different  judicially  trained  minds  can
apply different  aggravating  and  mitigating  circumstances  to  ultimately
arrive at a conclusion, on considering all relevant factors that  the  death
penalty may or may not be awarded in any given case.   Experience  based  on
judicial decisions touching  upon  this  aspect  amply  demonstrate  such  a
divergent approach being taken.  Though, it is not necessary to  dwell  upon
this aspect elaborately, at the same time, it needs to  be  emphasized  that
when on the same set of facts, one judicial mind can come to the  conclusion
that the circumstances do not warrant the  death  penalty,  whereas  another
may feel it to be a fit case fully justifying the  death  penalty,  we  feel
that when a convict who has suffered the  sentence  of  death  and  files  a
review petition, the necessity of oral hearing in  such  a  review  petition
becomes an integral part of “reasonable procedure”.

31.  We are of the opinion that “reasonable procedure” would encompass  oral
hearing of review petitions arising out of death penalties.   The  statement
of Justice Holmes, that the life of law is  not  logic;  it  is  experience,
aptly applies here.

32.  The first factor mentioned above, in  support  of  our  conclusion,  is
more fundamental than the second one.   Death  penalty  is  irreversible  in
nature.  Once a death sentence is executed, that results in taking away  the
life of the convict.  If it is found thereafter that  such  a  sentence  was
not warranted, that would be of no use as the life of that person cannot  be
brought back.  This being so, we feel that if the fundamental right to  life
is involved, any procedure to be just, fair and reasonable should take  into
account the two factors mentioned above.  Tht  being  so,  we  feel  that  a
limited oral hearing een at the review stage is mandated by Art. 21  in  all
death sentence cases.”

                 Therefore, the right to file Review Petition is a  valuable
right given to the convicts who are imposed death penalty.

(II)  That apart, right to file mercy  petitions  to  the  Governor  of  the
State as well as to the President of  India  also  remains  in  tact.  These
remedies are also of substance and not mere  formalities.   This  remedy  is
again a constitutional remedy as Executive Head is empowered to  pardon  the
death sentence (this power lies with the  President  under  Article  72  and
with the Governor of the State  under  Article  161  of  the  Constitution).
Thus, power to pardon is a part of the constitutional scheme which has  been
reposed by the people through the Constitution in the  Head  of  the  State,
and enjoys high status.  In exercise of their powers, the President  or  the
Governor, as the case may be, may  examine  the  evidence  afresh  and  this
exercise of power is clearly independent of the judiciary.  It is  clarified
by this Court that while exercising such  a  power,  the  Executive  is  not
sitting as a Court of Appeal.  Rather power to grant remission  of  sentence
is an act of grace, humanity in appropriate cases, i.e.  distinct,  absolute
and unfettered in nature (See Shatrughan Chauhan (supra)). Even  this  Court
in  V. Sriharan @  Murugan  v.  Union  of  India  &  Ors.[4]  observed  that
clemency procedure under Articles 72/161 of the Constitution provides a  ray
of hope to the condemned prisoners and his family  members  for  commutation
of death sentence into life imprisonment.  Of course, in a  given  case,  it
would be for the convict to make out a justifiable  case  for  remission  of
death sentence.  However, what is emphasized in the present context is  that
this is again a constitutional remedy provided  to  the  convicts  of  death
sentence and they have  a  right  to  avail  this  remedy  which  cannot  be
snatched by executing the death sentence before even giving such convicts  a
chance or opportunity to avail the same.  For this  purpose,  State  has  to
wait for reasonable period, even after such  convicts  fail  in  the  review
petition, if they so file.
                 Otherwise, there would be violation of the famous  rhetoric
of Emperor Ashoka who said 'State should not punish with vengeance'.

(III)  Article 21 of  the  Constitution  lays  down  that  nobody  shall  be
deprived  of  his  life  and  liberty  except  according  to  the  procedure
established by law.  After long judicial debate, it now stands settled  that
the procedure established by law has  to  be  'due  procedure'  (See  Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India[5]).  By judicial interpretation,  this  Court  has
read the principle of reasonableness into the  said  procedure  contemplated
by Article 21, holding that it must be 'right and just  and  fair'  and  not
arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.  Even  as  per  the  statute  book,  this
procedure does not culminate with the dismissal of appeals of  the  convicts
by the final Court.  No doubt, when an accused is tried of an offence  by  a
competent court of law and is imposed such death penalty and the said  death
penalty is upheld by the highest Court, the procedure  that  is  established
by law has been followed up  to  this  stage.   However,  in  the  statutory
framework, further procedural safeguards in the form of judicial  review  as
well as mercy petitions are  yet  to  be  traversed.   This  would  also  be
covered by the  expression  'procedure  established  by  law'  occurring  in
Article 21.  Therefore, till the  time  limitation  period  for  filing  the
review  petition  and  thereafter  reasonable  time  for  filing  the  mercy
petition has not lapsed, issuing of death warrants  would  be  violative  of
Article 21.

(IV)  There is another facet of right to life enshrined  in  Article  21  of
the Constitution which needs to be highlighted  at  this  juncture,  namely,
'human dignity'.  Article 21 has its traces in the dignity of  human  being.
It has been recognized as part of Article 21 of the Constitution.  We  would
like  to  extract  the  following  passage  from  National  Legal   Services
Authority v. Union of India & Ors.[6]:
“106.  The basic principle of the dignity and freedom of the  individual  is
common  to  all  nations,  particularly  those  having  democratic  set  up.
Democracy requires us to respect and develop the free spirit of human  being
which is responsible for all progress in human history. Democracy is also  a
method by which we attempt to raise the living standard of  the  people  and
to give opportunities to every person to develop his/her personality. It  is
founded on peaceful co-existence and cooperative  living.  If  democracy  is
based on the recognition of the individuality  and  dignity  of  man,  as  a
fortiori we have to recognize the right of  a  human  being  to  choose  his
sex/gender identity which is integral his/her personality and is one of  the
most basic aspect of self-determination dignity and freedom. In fact,  there
is a growing recognition that the true measure of development  of  a  nation
is not economic growth; it is human dignity.”


Once we recognize this aspect of dignity of human being,  it  does  not  end
with the confirmation of death sentence, but goes beyond and  remains  valid
till such a convict meets his/her destiny. Therefore, the  process/procedure
from confirmation of death sentence by the highest Court till the  execution
of the said sentence, the convict is to be treated  with  human  dignity  to
the extent which is reasonable and permissible in law.

This right to human dignity has many elements.  First  and  foremost,  human
dignity is the dignity of each human being  'as  a  human  being'.   Another
element, which needs to be highlighted, in the context of the present  case,
is that human dignity is infringed if a person's life,  physical  or  mental
welfare is armed.  It is in this sense torture, humiliation, forced  labour,
etc. all infringe on human dignity.  It is in this context  many  rights  of
the accused derive from his dignity as a human  being.   These  may  include
the presumption that every person  is  innocent  until  proven  guilty;  the
right of the accused to a fair trial as  well  as  speedy  trial;  right  of
legal aid, all part of human dignity.  Even after conviction, when a  person
is spending prison life, allowing humane  conditions  in  jail  is  part  of
human dignity.  Prisons reforms or Jail reforms measures to make convicts  a
reformed person so that they are able to lead normal life and assimilate  in
the society, after serving the jail term, are  motivated  by  human  dignity
jurisprudence.

      In fact, this principle of human dignity has been used  frequently  by
Courts in the context of considering the death penalty itself. Way  back  in
the year 1972, the United States Supreme Court kept in mind this  aspect  in
the case of Furman v. Georgia[7].  The Court, speaking through Brennan,  J.,
while considering the  application  of  Eighth  Amendment's  prohibition  on
cruel and unusual punishments, summed up the previous jurisprudence  on  the
Amendment as  'prohibit(ing)  the  infliction  of  uncivilized  and  inhuman
punishments.  The State, even as it punishes, must treat  its  members  with
respect for their intrinsic worth as human beings.  A punishment  is  'cruel
and unusual', therefore, if it does not comport  with  human  dignity'.   In
Gregg v. Georgia[8], that very Court, again through Brennan, J.,  considered
that 'the fatal constitutional infirmity in the punishment of death is  that
it treats “members of the human race as non-humans, as objects to  be  toyed
with an  discarded.   (It  is),  thus,  inconsistent  with  the  fundamental
premise of the clause that even the vilest criminal remains  a  human  being
possessed of  common  human  dignity'.   The  Canadian  Supreme  Court,  the
Hungarian Constitutional Court and the  South  African  Supreme  Court  have
gone to the extent of holding that capital punishment constitutes a  serious
impairment of human dignity  and  imposes  a  limitation  on  the  essential
content of the fundamental rights to life and  human  dignity  and  on  that
touchstone declaring that dignity as unconstitutional.

In this country, however, since the  death  penalty  has  been  held  to  be
constitutionally valid (See Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab[9]), we  do  not
have to travel to that extent.  At the same time, even if death sentence  is
to be awarded, it has to be in accord  with  due  dignity.   In  fact,  this
element of human  dignity  is  well  recognized  in  choosing  the  mode  of
execution of death sentence with general consensus that method of  execution
of death sentence should  be  such  which  is  certain,  humane,  quick  and
decent.  This was so stated in the 35th Report  of  the  Law  Commission  on
Capital  Punishment  way  back  in  the  year  1967.   Thereafter,  the  Law
Commission of India brought out a consultation paper on 'Mode  of  Execution
of Death Sentence and Incidental Matters' and made comparative  analysis  of
hanging,  intravenous  lethal  injection  and  shooting  as  the   mode   of
execution.   While  undertaking  this  study,  the   Law   Commission   also
recognized and emphasized  standards  of  human  decency  in  the  following
words:
“ The execution of the death sentence by hanging by rope has  to  be  judged
with   reference  to  the  objective  factors  such  as  the   international
standards or norms or the  climate  of  the  international  opinion,  modern
penological  theories  and  evolving  standards   of  human   decency.   The
standards of human decency with reference to death  punishment  is  required
to be judged with reference to various aspects which vary from   society  to
society depending on the cultural and spiritual tradition  of  the  society,
its  history and philosophy and its sense of moral and  ethical  values.  To
take an example, if  a sentence of cutting off the arm for  the  offence  of
the theft or a sentence of stoning to  death for  the  offence  of  adultery
were prescribed by law, as practiced in South Africa, there can be no  doubt
that such punishment would  be  condemned  as  barbaric  and  cruel  in  our
country, even though it may be regarded as proportionate to the offence  and
hence reasonable and just in some other countries. So also the standards  of
human decency vary from time to time even with in the same  society.  In  an
evolutionary society, the  standards  of  human  decency  are  progressively
evolving  to  higher  levels  and  what  was  regarded  as  legitimate   and
reasonable punishment proportionate to the  offence  at  one  time  may  now
according to the evolving  standards  of  human  decency,  be  regarded   as
barbaric and inhuman punishment wholly disproportionate to the offence.”


United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC),  in  its  Economic  and
Social  Council  Resolution  1984/50,  annex.  General  Assembly  Resolution
29/118, 1984,  described  one  of  the  important  standard  and  safeguards
against the death penalty enunciated in safeguard  No.9  as  “where  capital
punishment occurs it shall be carried out so as to inflict minimum  possible
suffering'.  Even this Court, more  than  quarter  century  ago,  laid  down
fourfold test that is to be satisfied in the execution of death  penalty  in
Deena v. Union of India[10].  This quadruple test is:
(i)   The act of execution should be as quick and  simple  as  possible  and
free  from  anything  that  unnecessarily  sharpens  the  poignancy  of  the
prisoner's apprehension.
(ii)  The act of the  execution  should  produce  immediate  unconsciousness
passing quickly into the death.
(iii) It should be decent.
(iv)  It should not involve mutilation.

We can also draw sustenance from another judgment of this Court in the  case
of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Ors.[11] Though in the  context  of
jail conditions for those prisoners sentenced to death, the Court held  that
putting them in solitary confinement  was  impermissible  and  provision  to
this effect was unconstitutional and violative of a  prisoner's  fundamental
rights under Article 21, 20(2), 19 and 14 of the  Constitution.   The  Court
held that prisoner in jail still retains his  fundamental  rights.   In  the
eternal words of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the said judgment:
“And in our constitutional order it is axiomatic that  the  prison  laws  do
not swallow up the  fundamental  rights  of  the  legally  unfree,  and,  as
sentinals on the qui-vive, courts will guard freedom behind bars,  tempered,
of course, by environmental realism but intolerant of torture  by  executive
echelons.  The policy of the law and the  paramountcy  of  the  Constitution
are beyond purchase by authoritarians  glibly  invoking  'dangerousness'  of
inmates and peace in prisons”.  It is so obvious that the aforesaid  ageless
message has its root in human dignity which has to be preserved even when  a
prisoner is sentenced to death.”


Thus, we hold that condemned prisoners also have  a  right  to  dignity  and
execution of death sentence cannot be carried out in  a  arbitrary,  hurried
and secret manner  without  allowing  the  convicts  to  exhaust  all  legal
remedies.

We find that the procedure prescribed by the  High  Court  of  Allahabad  in
PUDR's case (supra) is in consonance with Article 21  of  the  Constitution.
While executing the death sentence, it  is  mandatory  to  follow  the  said
procedure and it is also necessary for the authorities to keep in  mind  the
guidelines contained in the judgment of this Court in  Shatrughan  Chauhan's
case (supra).

Since we find that the death warrants were signed by the Sessions  Judge  in
a haste, without waiting for the exhaustion of  the  aforesaid  remedies  on
the part of the convicts, the same are hereby quashed and set aside.

We direct the respondents to follow the  procedure,  particularly  the  five
steps, which are already  extracted  above,  as  contained  in  PUDR's  case
(supra) passed by the High Court  of  Allahabad,  for  executing  the  death
sentence.

We make the  Rule  absolute.   These  writ  petitions  are  allowed  in  the
aforesaid terms.

                             .............................................J.
                                                                (A.K. SIKRI)


                             .............................................J.
                                                          (UDAY UMESH LALIT)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 27, 2015.
-----------------------
[1]   PIL No. 57810 of 2014 decided on 28.01.2015
[2]   (2014) 3 SCC 1
[3]   (2014) 9 SCC 737
[4]   (2014) 4 SCC 242
[5]   (1978) 1 SCC 248
[6]   (2014) 5 SCC 438
[7]   408 US 238 (1972)
[8]   428 US 153 (1976)
[9]   (1980) 2 SCC 684
[10]  (1983) 4 SCC 645
[11]  (1978) 4 SCC 494