 bill no 36 of  2017 the constitution (amendment) bill, 2017 by shri vinod kumar boianapalli, mp a billfurther to amend the constitution of indiabe it enacted by parliament in the sixty-eighth year of the republic of  india as follows:—amendment of article 1342 in article 134 of the constitution, in clause (1), after sub-clause (b), the following sub-clauses shall be inserted, namely:—"(ba) has confirmed the sentence of death of an accused person; or (bb) has enhanced the sentence of an accused person to a sentence of death; or statement of objects and reasonsarticle 134 of the constitution lays down the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court in criminal matters presently article 134 (1) (a) and (b) provide for a mandatory appeal before the supreme court where the high court reverses an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentences him to death, and where the high court withdraws for trial before itself a case from any subordinate court and in such trial sentences the person to death a mandatory appeal does not lie where the high court either confirms a death sentence by the sessions court or enhances a sentence to sentence of death therefore appeals from such cases are ordinarily preferred under article 136 by way of special leave petitions (slps) however, article 136 confers the court with discretionary powers, and therefore the court may dismiss such death sentence cases in limine, ie without admitting it for a hearing on merits, or without recording reasons for such dismissalaccording to the death penalty india report by national law university, delhi, there have been nine cases of in limine dismissals in death penalty slps since 2004 a report entitled "lethal lottery" by amnesty international and people's union for civil liberties which studied the supreme court judgments in death penalty cases between 1950 to 2006 also notes that a large number of slps have been dismissed in liminefurther, in september, 2014, a constitution bench in mohd arif ashfaq vs the registrar; supreme court (2014) 9 scc held that all review petitions in death sentence cases must be heard in open court it was held that such cases belong to a distinct category owing to the irreversibility of the punishment, and that different judicially trained minds can come to diametrically opposite conclusions on the same set of facts review jurisdiction of the supreme court under article 137 of the constitution succeeds special leave jurisdiction under article 136 it is, therefore, anomalous that death sentence slps under article 136 may be dismissed in limine without reasons being recorded, while review petitions in this category are required to be heard in open court without a reasoned order in a death sentence in a slp, the open court hearing of review petitions as contemplated in mohd arif ashfaq case will be rendered meaninglessthe 187th law commission report on mode of execution of death sentence and incidental matters recommends a statutory right to appeal before the supreme court in all death sentence matters, especially given that such right of appeal is conferred in many legislations pertaining to civil cases it argued that the death penalty is qualitatively different because of its irreversibility and its imposition has serious consequences the 262nd law commission report on the death penalty supported this recommendation in light of the scope of error inherent in the criminal justice systemthe present bill thus seeks to amend article 134 (1) to expand the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court to provide for mandatory appeals when death sentences are confirmed, and when sentences are enhanced to the death penalty by high courts the expansion of the court's powers will ensure that every case in which the death sentence is in question is heard and disposed off as a criminal appealthe death penalty is a unique punishment in that it is irreversible, and therefore the procedure administering it must comply with due process envisaged under article 21 of the constitution, which is violated by in limine dismissals it is imperative that the supreme court in its appellate jurisdiction has every opportunity to reappreciate evidence and sentencing in all death sentence caseshence this billnew delhi;vinod kumar boianapallifebruary 9, 2017 annexure extract from the constitution of india    134 (1) an appeal shall lie to the supreme court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a high court in the territory of india if the high court—(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; orappellate jurisdiction of supreme court in regard to criminalmatters(b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or(c) [certifies under article 134a] that the case is a fit one for appeal to the supreme court:provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause (1) of article 145 and to such conditions as the high court may establish or require (2) parliament may by law confer on the supreme court any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a high court in the territory of india subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law     lok  sabha———— a billfurther to amend the constitution of india————(shri vinod kumar boianapalli, mp)gmgipmrnd—4687ls(s3)—01-03-2017