[2017] 1 MLJ A Michael Philip Spears v Ketua Pengarah Penjara Kajang & Anor and another appeal (Varghese George JCA) 483 Our equipollent art 5(1) of our Federal Constitution is worded in the following manner: (1) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law. B C D E F [36] Passages from the judgment in Shatrughan Chauhan which in our view had relevance and force in our context too, are produced hereunder: [71] In this batch of cases, two convict prisoners prayed for commutation of death sentence into sentence of life imprisonment on the ground that the unconscionably long delay in deciding the mercy petition has caused the onset of chronic psychotic illness, and in view of this the execution of death sentence will be inhuman and against the well-established canons of human rights. [72] The principal question raised in those petitions is whether because of the aforementioned supervening events after the verdict of this Court confirming the death sentence, the infliction of the most extreme penalty in the circumstances of the case, violates the fundamental rights under Article 21. The petitioners have made it clear that they are not challenging the death sentence imposed by this Court. However, as on date, they are suffering from insanity/mental illness. In this background, let us consider whether the petitioners have made out a case for commutation to life sentence on the ground of insanity. [73] India is a member of the United Nations and has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). A large number of United Nations international documents prohibit the execution of death sentence on an insane person. Clause 3(e) of the Resolution 2000/65 dated 27 April 2000 of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights titled ‘The Question of Death Penalty’ urges ‘all State that still maintain the death penalty … not to impose the death penalty on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder or to execute any such person. … G … (e) Not to impose the death penalty on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder or to execute any such person. H I … [74] Similarly, Clause 89 of the Report of the Special Rapporteur or Extra-Judicial Summary or Arbitrary Executions published on 24 December 1996 by the UN Commission on Human Rights under the caption ‘Restrictions on the use of death penalty’ states that ‘the imposition of capital punishment on mentally retarded or insane persons, pregnant women and recent mothers is prohibited’. Further, Clause 116 thereof under the caption ‘Capital punishment’ urges that ‘Governments that enforce such legislation with respect to minors and the mentally ill are particularly called upon to bring their domestic criminal laws into conformity with international legal standards’.