established by law.

Over the sp
an of years, this Court has
expanded the horizon of
right to life
guaranteed under the
Constitution to balance with the progress of human life.
This case provides yet anothe
r momentous occasion, where
this Court is called upon to
decide whether it will be in
violation of Article 21, amongs
t other provisions, to execute
the levied death sentence on the accused notwithstanding
the existence of supervening ci
rcumstances. Let us examine
the supervening circumstances
of each individual case to
arrive at a coherent decision.
2) All the above writ petition
s, under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, have been
filed either by the convicts,
who were awarded death sentence or by their family
members or by public-spirited
bodies like Peoples Union for
Democratic Rights (PUDR) based
on the rejection of mercy
petitions by the Governor an
d the President of India.
3) In all the writ petitions,
the main prayer consistently
relates to the issuance of a writ
of declaration declaring that
execution of sentence of death

pursuant to the rejection of

the mercy petitions by th
e President of India is
unconstitutional and to set aside the death sentence