used in the warrant, issued under section 381, Cr.P.C, shows that the purpose behind this rule is to convey to the condemned prisoner the reason behind his execution. Similarly, the purpose behind informing him that his appeal and mercy petition stand rejected is to make him aware that he has exhausted all the legal remedies against his/her conviction. With this understanding, Rule 362 provides the condemned prisoner an opportunity to write a will before being executed. Therefore, this Rule can be termed as an implied safeguard against execution of death sentence where a condemned prisoner, due to mental illness, has lost his ability to reason and understand the rationale behind his/her punishment. 60. The issue of executing a mentally ill condemned prisoner has also been considered in other jurisdictions. In particular, the judicial opinions of the Supreme Courts of United States and India are relevant. 61. The question of mental illness and execution of death sentence was dealt with by the Supreme Court of United States in the case of Ford v. Wainwright16. It was held by a plurality opinion that the Eighth Amendment17 prohibits a State from carrying out sentence of death upon a prisoner, who is insane. The reasons provided by the plurality judgment were (i) killing one who has no capacity to understand his/her crime or punishment offends humanity; (ii) lack of retributive value in executing a person who has no comprehension or awareness of penalty's existence and purpose. 62. The Supreme Court of United States clarified the scope of the category of accused persons exempt from execution in the case of Pannetti v. Quarterman18 by setting a "standard for competency". This standard focuses on whether a condemned prisoner can reach a rational understanding of the reason for his/her execution. A clear pronouncement of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of United States is found in the following passage of its judgment in the case of Madison v. Alabama19:" ..This Court decided in Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399 (1986), that the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments precludes executing a prisoner who has "lost his sanity" after sentencing. Id., at 406. While on death row, Alvin Ford was beset by "pervasive delusion[s]" associated with "[p]aranoid [s]chizophrenia. " Id., at 402-403. Surveying both the common law and state statutes, the Court found a uniform practice against taking the life of such a prisoner. See id., at 406-409. Among the reasons for that time-honored bar, the Court explained, was a moral "intuition" that "killing one who has no capacity" to understand his crime or punishment "simply offends humanity." Id., at 407, 409; see id., at 409 (citing the "natural abhorrence civilized societies feel" at performing such an act). Another rationale rested on the lack of "retributive value" in executing a person who has no comprehension of the meaning of the community's judgment. Ibid.; see id., at 421 (Powell, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (stating that the death penalty's "retributive force []depends on the defendant's awareness of the penalty's existence and purpose"). The resulting rule, now stated as a matter of constitutional law,