Page 1

       REPORTABLE     

               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       INHERENT JURISDICTION

 CURATIVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 88 OF 2013            IN

  REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 435 OF 2013            IN  

    WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 146 OF 2011

Navneet Kaur            ... Petitioner(s)

versus

State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.            ... Respondent(s)

    J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Navneet Kaur w/o Devender Pal 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 imprisonment  

for life on the ground of supervening circumstance of delay  

1

Page 2

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  

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 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  

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.   

4) On 30.05.2011, a communication was sent from the Joint  

Secretary  (Judicial)  to  the  Principal  Secretary,  Home  

2

Page 3

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  

communicated  to  the  Superintendent,  Central  Jail  No.  3,  

Tihar Jail, New Delhi on 13.06.2011.

5) On 24.06.2011, the wife of the accused (petitioner herein)  

preferred a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 146 of 2011 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 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.  

6)  Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the wife of the accused  

preferred Review Petition being (Criminal) No. 435 of 2013  

3

Page 4

which  was  also  dismissed  by  this  Court  on  13.08.2013.  

Subsequently, the wife of the accused, petitioner 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  

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, by  order  dated  21.01.2014,  commuted  the  

sentence  of  death  imposed  on  the  petitioners  therein  to  

imprisonment for life 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 imprisonment.  

9) While deciding the aforesaid issue in the above decision,  

the  Bench  was  simultaneously  called  upon  to  decide  a  

4

Page 5

specific  issue  viz.,  whether  is  there  a  rationality  in  

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 imprisonment, which  

was the point of law decided in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.  

146 of 2011.   

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 SCC 574, held:

“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  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)  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  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.

5

Page 6

58) As rightly pointed out by Mr. Ram Jethmalani, it is open  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  unconstitutionality of this additional incarceration is itself  inexorable  and  must  not  be  treated  as  dispensable  through a judicial decision.”

*** *** ***

“64) In the light of the same, we are of the 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  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  death  sentence.  Each  case  requires  consideration on its own facts.”

*** *** ***

“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 aspect the Courts have to satisfy is  that the delay must be 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 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 held that the ratio laid down in Devender Pal Singh  

6

Page 7

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  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  

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  Depression)  with  Hypertension  with  Dyslipidemia  with  Lumbo-cervical Spondylosis with Mild Prostatomegaly.

2.  He  is  currently  receiving  Anti-Depressant,  Anti- Psychotic,  Anti-anxiety,  Anti-Hypertensives,  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  the treatment with significant fluctuations in the severity  of his clinical condition.

4.The  treatment  comprising  of  various  combinations  of  pharmacological  and  non-pharmacological  treatments  have brought about partial and inconsistent improvement  in  his  clinical  condition  in  the  last  three  years  of  

7

Page 8

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”.

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  

(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.

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 petition and on the ground of insanity. To  

this extent, the Curative Petition stands allowed.

……………………….…………………………CJI.     (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

………………………….…………………………J.     (R. M. LODHA)                                   

8

Page 9

………………………….…………………………J.     (H.L. DATTU)                                   

………………………….…………………………J.     (SUDHANSU JYOTI  MUKHOPADHAYA)      

NEW DELHI;  MARCH 31, 2014.

9