Instances of President's delay in commuting death sentences has come under public debate as denial of justice. Should there be a time limit specified for the President to accept/reject such petitions? Analyse.

The law as it stands now provides no time limit for the President to decide if he wishes to exercise his right to grant a pardon. However, a recent decision of the Supreme Court granted pardon to 15 persons on grounds of inordinate delay. It also issued guidelines asking the authorities to provide appropriate legal aid to persons on death row, and asking that they be informed about the rejection of their mercy petitions in writing. This decision was an attempt by the Judiciary to provide some transparency to the process by which an inmate is granted presidential pardon.
We can analyze whether there should be a time limit for the President to accept/reject death sentence commutation petitions by considering arguments in favor as well as against:

Arguments in Favor:

• Delays by the President in deciding mercy pleas allows people with commuted death sentences to languish in prison indefinitely, which violates principles of natural justice. A time limit will prevent this injustice.
• According to the Supreme Court, delays in deciding mercy pleas impinge on prisoners’ fundamental rights. A time limit will compel the President to apply judicious mind and give petitions reasonable consideration within a defined timeline.
• Time limits already apply to other stages of the legal process from lower courts to appeals. Extending this to acceptance/rejection of petitions by the President would streamline the process.

Arguments Against:

• The power to pardon death sentences is at the discretion of the President. Imposing time limits erodes this constitutional power and discretion. Clemency considers not just the case itself but social factors.
• These are complex moral decisions. Rushing the President may compromise proper procedure and application of mind in decisions that concern taking a person’s life, even if all legal recourse has been utilized.
• If new evidence/arguments are brought forward, re-examining petitions beyond defined timelines would get legally complicated. Flexibility helps ensure miscarriages of justice are prevented.

While delays violate prisoner rights and procedural justice, mandatory limits counterweigh considerations of public conscience that the President is constitutionally required to apply. Given the gravity of capital punishment, discretionary power tempered with transparency seems reasonable provided delays don’t become egregious. Specifying broad timeframes through legislation could balance both factors.