[Death penalty cases] Supreme Court asks Madhya Pradesh to re-consider conviction incentivizing policy for public prosecutors

The Supreme Court on Thursday suggested the State of Madhya Pradesh (MP) to re-consider its policy under which public prosecutors are given increment based on the number of sentences awarded in matters argued by them..The apex court was hearing suo motu case to examine and institutionalise process involved in collection of data and information to decide award of sentence in death penalty cases. The intention was to lay down guidelines to be followed by courts across India while considering cases involved awarding death penalty.The suo motu case was initiated last month while hearing a plea by one Irfan@ Bhayu Mevati challenging the death penalty imposed on him by the trial court and confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.The Court had earlier sought the assistance of Attorney General KK Venugopal and also appointed advocate K Parameshwar as Amicus Curiae. Subsequently, the Amicus had submitted report highlighting how the State of Madhya Pradesh publicises achievements of prosecutors and confers annual awards on them for their work though there are no financial incentives. On Thursday, when the matter was taken up for hearing the Bench of Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia opined that the policy by State of MP would undermine the independence of the prosecutor, his discretion, fair trial and judicial independence..Attorney General KK Venugopal also stated that the policy in question by MP was in gross violation of fundamental and human rights and has to be struck down..Amicus K Parameshwar was of the opinion that such policies meddle with the prosecutorial integrity, prosecutorial discretion and fair trial.His contention was that since the Indian justice system is adversarial, the judge could not pivot the direction of the trial. In view of that, a lot depends on the prosecution.A prosecutor who would consider convictions as an incentive, would not aid in the conduct of a fair trial, he argued..The Bench also heard submissions by Advocate Shreya Rastogi, who appeared on behalf of Project 39A of National Law University, Delhi who also vehemently opposed the policy.Both the Amicus and Rastogi also sought for the policy to be struck down at the earliest..Advocate Saurabh Mishra for the State of Madhya Pradesh was willing to make a statement that the State government would review the policies and any other orders in place that would incentivize based on the number of sentences/ convictions..After hearing the submissions of all counsel, the Bench deemed it fit to grant an opportunity to the State of MP to place its stand on record.The Bench granted 7 days to Mishra to place on affidavit as regards the government's call on the policy. The Bench then proceeded to reserve its verdict which will be delivered after summer vacation.