SHABNAM versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 289, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
(2015) 8 S.C.R. 289 
SHABNAM 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .. 
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 88 of 2015) 
MAY27, 2015 
[A.K. SIKRI AND UDAY UM ESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Sentence/Sentencing: 
A 
B 
c 
Murder case -
Death sentence -
Conviction and 
sentence upheld by Supreme Court- Within a week death 
warrants issued by Sessions Judge - Writ petition challenging 
same - Held: Death warrant was signed by the Sessions 0 
Judge in haste without exhaustion of remedies available to 
the convicts - This is impermissible and unwarranted. 
Death sentence - Procedure to be followed before 
execution of death sentence - Essential safeguards ~ 
Sufficient notice to be given to convict before. issuance of E 
death warrant- Warrant must specify exact date and time for 
execution - Reasonable period of time must elapse between 
the date of order on the execution warrant and date fixed -
Copy of execution warrant to be immediately supplied to the F 
cbnvict - Where a convict is not in a position to avail legal 
assistance, legal aid must be provided. 
· 
Rights of convicts who are impos.ed death penalty- Held: 
Convicts have judicial and administrative remedies - Right 
to file review petition is a valuable right given to the convicts G 
who are imposed death penalty- Convict also has a right to 
file mercy petitions to the Governor of the State as well as the 
289 
H
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 
.. 
A President of India - Suell' right cannot be .snatched by 
executing the death sentence before even giving such 
convicts a chance or opporlunity to avail the same - For this 
purpose, the State has to wait for reasonable period even 
after such convicts fail in the review petition if they so file -
B Constitution of/ndia, 1950-Arlicle 21. 
Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) v. Union 
of Ind/a & Ors. PIL No. 57810 of 2014 decided on 
28.01.2015; Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. 
c . (2014) 3 sec: 2014 (1) SCR 609; Mohd. Arif@Ashfaq v. 
D 
E 
Registrar, Supreme Courl offndia & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 737; 
II. Sriharan @ Murugan v. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 4 
SCC 242; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 
248: 1978 (2) SCR 621 - relied on. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Arlic/e. 21 - Right to life - Right to Human dignity -
. 
Elements of - Discussed. 
Arlicle 21 - Right to Human dignity- Held: Condemned 
prisoners also have a right to dignity and execution of death 
sentence cannot be carried out in arbitrary, hurried and secret 
manner without allowing the convicts to exhaust all legal 
F remedies - Sentence/Sentencing. 
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India & Ors. 
(2014) 5 SCC 438; Furman v. Georgia 408 US 238 (1972); 
Gregg v. Georgia 428 US 153 (1976); Bachan Singh v. State 
of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684; Deena v. Union of India (1983) 
G 4 SCC 645:1984 (1) SCR 1; Su nil Batra v.
Delhi 
Administration & Ors. (1978) 4 SCC 494: 1979 (1) SCR 
392 - referred to. 
H

SHABNAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
Case Law Reference 
2014 (1) SCR 609 
relied on. 
Para 12 
(2014) 9 sec 737 
relied on. 
Para 13 
(2014) 4 sec 242 
relied on. 
Para 13 · 
1978 (2) SCR 621 
relied on. 
Para 13 
(2014) s sec 438 
referred to. 
Para 13 
(1980) 2 sec 684 
referred to. 
Para 17 
1984 (1) SCR 1 
referred to. 
Para 18 
1979 (1) SCR 392 
referred to. 
Para 19 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition 
(Criminal) No. 88 of 2015 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
WITH 
W. P. (Crl) No. 89/2015 
Anand Grover, Raju Ramachandran, Shadan Farasat, 
Lubhyathi R., Shreya Rastogi, Nishant Gokhale, for the 
Petitioner. 
Pinky Anand, ASG, V. Mohan, Binu Tamta, Karan Seth, 
Rajesh Ranjan (For Sushma Suri), Pragati Neekhra, Ameet 
Singh, for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. Rule. 
291 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
2) Ms. Pinky Anand, learned ASG, accepts notice on H
292 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 
A behalf of Union of India and Ms. Pragati Neekhra, learned 
counsel, accepts notice on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh. 
3) With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for 
the parties, we have taken up these petitions for final hearing 
B and propose to dispose of these writ petitions by this order. 
4) 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~ 
c 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 
D 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 
E confirmation by the High Court. 
5) 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 
F 
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. 
6) The present writ petitions are filed on the allegations 
G. 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 
H convicts can file review petition seeking review of the judgment
SHABNAM v. UNION OF INDIA& ORS. 
293 
[AK. SIKRI, J.] 
dated 15.05.2015. They also have the right to file mercy A 
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. 
B 
7) 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 C 
appeared on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh. 
8) Ms. Pinky Anand, leamedASG, has broughtto our notice 
the instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, 
Government of India, which delineates the procedure regarding o 
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: 
E 
"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 
F 
· 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." 
G 
9) Sh~ 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 H
294 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 
A 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 
B thereupon. 
10) 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 
C 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. 
11) On the other hand, in so far as the present case is 
o 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 
E 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 
F 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 
G 
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 
H 1 PIL No. 57810 of 2014 decided on 28.01.2015
SHABNAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
295 
[A.K. SIKRI, J.] 
the provisions of Sections 413 and 414 of Cr. P. C. and A 
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 B 
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 C 
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 0 
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." 
E 
12) 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 
13) In the present case, we find that this Court pronounced · F 
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 clear1y impermissible 
and unwarranted for various reasons, as discussed hereinafter: G 
(I) First and foremost reason is that the convicts have not 
exhausted their judicial and administrative remedies, which 
2 (2014) 3 .sec 1 
H
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
are still open to them even iftheir 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 
B 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. 
c 
In the case of Mohd. Arif @Ashfaq v. Registrar, 
Supreme Courtoflndia & 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 
D 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 
E judgment will bring home the importance which we are attaching 
F 
G 
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 
H 3 (2014) 9 sec 131
SHABNAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
297 
[A.K. SIKRI, J.] 
'· 
mitigating circumstances to ultimately arrive at a 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 B 
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 nqt warrant the death penalty, whereas 
another may feel it to be a fit case fully justifying the death C 
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". 
D 
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. · · 
· E 
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 F 
of the convict. If it is found thereafter that such a sentence 
was not wa•ranted, 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 ;~volved, any 
procedure to be just, fair and reasonable should take into G 
account the two factors mentioned above. Tht being so, 
we feel that a limited ciral hearing een at the review stage 
is mandated by Art. 21 in all death sentence cases." 
H
298 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
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 
B 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). 
C 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 
D 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 
E ·nature (See Shatrughan Chauhan (supra)). Even this Court 
in \I. 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 
F 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 
G 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, 
H 4 (2014) 4 sec 242
. SHABNAM v. UNION OF INDIA& ORS. 
299 
· [AK. SIKRI, J.] 
State has to wait for reasonable period, even after such A 
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'. 
B 
(Ill) Article 21 of the Constitution lays down that nobody 
shall be deprived of his life al'!d liberty except according to the 
procedure established by law. After long judicial debate, it 
now stands settled that the procedure established by law has c 
to be 'due procedure' (See Maneka Gandhi v. Union of 
/ndia5). 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 a~bitrary, fanciful or oppressive. Even as o 
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 E 
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 
F 
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 ofrightto 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 
s (1978) 1 sec 248 
G 
H
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 
A 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: 
B 
"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 
C 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 
D 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 
E dignity." 
14) 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 
F 
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. 
G 
15) 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 
H e (2014) s sec 438
SHABNAM v. UNION OF INDIA& ORS. 
301 
[A.K. SIKRI, J.] 
highlighted, in the context of the present case, is that human A 
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 B 
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 C 
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. 
16) In fact, this principle of human dignity has been used D 
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. Georgia7. The Court, speaking through Brennan, J., while 
considering the application of Eighth Amendment's prohibition E 
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 F 
worth as human beings. A punishment is 'cruel and unusual', 
therefore, if it does not comport with human dignity'. In Gregg 
v. Georgia8, that very Court, again through Brennan, J., 
considered that 'the fatal constitutional infirmity in the 
punishment of death is ttiat it treats "members of the human G 
race as non-humans, as objects to be toyed with an 
discarded. (It is), thus, inconsistent with the fundamental 
7 408 us 238 (1972 
8428us153(1976) 
H
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 
A 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 
B 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. 
C 
17) In this country, however, since the death penalty has 
been held to be constitutionally valid (See Bachan Singh v. 
State of Punjab9), 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 
D 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 
E 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 
F 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: 
G 
"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 
H e (1980) 2 sec 684
SHABNAM v. UNION OF INDIA& ORS. 
303 
[A.K. SIKRI, J.] 
of human decency with reference to death punishment is A 
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 B 
the offence of the theft or a sentence of stoning to death 
fpr 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 C 
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 0 
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 E 
punishment wholly disproportionate to the offence." 
18) United Nations Economic and Social Council 
(ECOSOC), in its Economic and Social Council Resolution 
1984/50, annex. General Assembly Resolution 29/118, 1984, 
F 
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 G 
be satisfied in the execution of death penalty in Deena v. 
Union oflndia10. This quadruple test is: 
(i) The act of execution should be as quick and simple as 
1 a (1983) 4 sec 645 
H
304 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
possible and free from anything that unnecessarily sharpens 
the poignancy of the prisoner's apprehension. 
B 
(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. 
19) We can also draw sustenance from another judgment 
C 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 
D 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: 
E 
F 
G 
"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." 
20) Thus, we hold that condemned prisoners also have a 
right to dignity and execution of death sentence cannot be 
H 
11 (1978) 4 sec 494

SHABNAM v. UNION OF INDIA& ORS. 
305 
[A.K. SIKRI, J.] 
carried out in a arbitrary, hurried and secret manner without A 
allowing the convicts to exhaust all legal remedies. 
21) 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 B 
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). 
22) 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. 
23) 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. 
c 
D 
24) We make the Rule absolute. These writ petitions are E 
allowed in the aforesaid terms. 
Devika Gujral 
Writ Petitions allowed . 
.. .