held "a category of defendants defined by their mental state" incompetent to be executed. Id., at 419. 63. Now, we refer to the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of India with regard to the issue of prohibition of executing mentally ill death row convicts. In the case of Shatrughan Chauhan and another v. Union of India and others20, a number of convicts prayed for the issuance of a writ inter alia declaring that execution of a mentally ill/insane death row convict is unconstitutional. It was held:86 The above materials, particularly, the directions of the United Nations International Conventions, of which India is a party, clearly show that insanity/mental illness/schizophrenia is a crucial supervening circumstance, which should be considered by this Court in deciding whether in the facts and circumstances of the case death sentence could be commuted to life imprisonment. To put it clear, "insanity" is a relevant supervening factor for consideration by this Court. 87. In addition, after it is established that the death convict is insane and it is duly certified by the competent doctor, undoubtedly, Article 21 protects him and such person cannot be executed without further clarification from the competent authority about his mental problems. It is also highlighted by relying on commentaries from various countries that civilized countries have not executed death penalty on an insane person. The learned Counsel also relied on the United Nations Resolution against execution of death sentence, debate of the General Assembly, the decisions of International Court of Justice, Treaties, European Conventions, 8th amendment in the United States which prohibits execution of death sentence on an insane person. In view of the well-established laws both in the national as well as international sphere, we are inclined to consider insanity as one of the supervening circumstances that warrants for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment. In 'X' v. State of Maharashtra21, complex questions concerning the relationship between mental illness and crime were raised. While addressing the issues of mental illness and execution, the Court ruled: 60. Moreover, Article 20 of the Constitution guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive criminal penalty. The right flows from the basic tenet of proportionality. By protecting even those convicted of heinous crimes, this right reaffirm the duty to respect the dignity of all persons. Therefore, our Constitution embodies broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency against which penal measures have to be evaluated. In recognizing these civilized standards, we may refer to the aspirations of India in being a signatory to the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which endorse prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments with respect to disabled persons. Additionally, when the death penalty existed in England, there was a common law right barring execution of lunatic prisoners. Additionally, there