MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN vs SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL ETC.S
This petition arose from a request for relief against the execution of a death sentence, following the petitioner's filing of mercy petitions before the Prime Minister and the Provincial Government. The core legal question was whether the court could interfere in the execution process based on pending or subsequent mercy petitions where the initial mercy petition had been dismissed. The Supreme Court held that once a mercy petition has been dismissed, the original sentence remains operative unless mercy is explicitly granted and the sentence is commuted. Relying on the principle established in Muhammad Sadiq (C.P.S.L.A. No. 182 of 1978), the Court affirmed that the discretion of the President regarding mercy petitions is not subject to interference through writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court determined that it could not take cognizance of subsequent mercy petitions that had not resulted in a commutation order. The petition was dismissed, reaffirming that the existing sentence holds the field absent a formal grant of clemency.
- Can the court interfere in the execution of a death sentence through writ jurisdiction based on a pending mercy petition?
- Does the filing of a subsequent mercy petition automatically stay the execution of a death sentence after an initial mercy petition has been dismissed?
- Is the discretion of the President in deciding a mercy petition subject to judicial review?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition was argued along with C. P. S. L. A. No. 182 of 1978. Besides adopting the arguments presented by Mr. Asghar A.I, Advocate, Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on- Record submitted that the petitioner had moved a mercy petition before the Prime Minister who ordered stay of execution on 21-5-1977, but he is not in a position to state what further orders have been passed on this application. He submits that another petition was moved towards the end of 1977 by. The sisters and mother of the petitioner and they are also unaware of any order having been passed thereon. He further submits that the petitioner moved the Provincial Government for mercy, but no action has been taken on this application.
2. It is quite clear that the mercy petition filed by the petitioner ha been dismissed at one stage and unless on the bass of the subsequent mercy petition said to have been filed, mercy is in fact, extended to the petitioner, and sentence of death commuted, the Order already passed must hold the field. In Muhammad Sadiq and another (C. P. S. L. A. No. 182 of 1978) it has been held that the discretion of the President in a mercy petition was not liable to interference in the exercise of writ jurisdic--petition. No cognizance of the subsequent petition filed by the petitioner can be taken.
3. This petition fails, and is dismissed hereby. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 1 case
- GHULAM HUSSAIN and others vs THE STATE and others 1999 YLR 1596