Divya 
As we delve deeper into the case of the Gavit sisters, this episode brings us to one of the most critical and controversial phases of their legal journey—their mercy petitions and the judicial debates that followed. After their arrest and trial, Seema and Renuka Gavit faced the gravest of sentences—death. But what followed was a protracted legal and administrative battle that tested the patience of the courts, the executive, and the public alike.
The Mercy Petitions: A Plea for Life
The Indian Constitution grants the President of India the power to grant pardons under Article 72, while a similar power is vested in state Governors under Article 161. Seema and Renuka exercised this constitutional right, filing their mercy petitions on October 10, 2008, and October 17, 2009, respectively. These petitions, submitted first to the Governor of Maharashtra, were rejected in March 2012 and August 2013. With all hope resting on the President’s decision, the case moved to the highest executive authority in the land—then-President Pranab Mukherjee, who ultimately rejected their mercy pleas in July 2014.
Their rejection, however, was not the end of their legal battle. The sisters promptly moved the Bombay High Court on August 19, 2014, arguing that the state had taken an unreasonably long time to act on their mercy petitions. According to them, such a delay—spanning over five years—was a violation of their fundamental rights, forcing them to live under the constant shadow of execution. Their argument hinged on the principle that mercy pleas should be decided within a reasonable time, ideally within three months.
The Blame Game: State vs. Central Government
The case became more tangled as it moved through the legal system. The Union Home Ministry and the Maharashtra state home department engaged in a blame game, each pointing fingers at the other for the delay. The central government claimed that it had repeatedly reminded Maharashtra to act on the matter, including an urgent request in April 2012. The Maharashtra home department, on the other hand, insisted that there was no undue delay on its part, attributing the time-lapse to procedural requirements at multiple levels of decision-making.
Further complicating matters, the files containing their mercy petitions were reportedly destroyed in a fire at the Mantralaya, the headquarters of the Maharashtra government, in June 2012. This incident necessitated a reconstruction of the documents, adding more time to an already protracted process.
The High Court Verdict: From Death to Life
On January 18, 2022, the Bombay High Court delivered a landmark judgment that commuted the sisters’ death sentence to life imprisonment. The court ruled that the “gross and unexplained delay” in deciding their mercy petitions had a “dehumanizing effect” on them. It also criticized the “neglect and indifference” of state officers, stating that their inefficiency had ultimately forced the court’s hand in converting the sentence.
However, the court did not shy away from emphasizing the gravity of their crimes. It labeled the sisters as “a menace to society” and reiterated that they were responsible for “heinous crimes.” The verdict ensured that they would remain in Pune’s Yerwada Jail for the rest of their natural lives.
Had the original sentence been carried out, Seema and Renuka would have become the first women to be executed in India since 1955—only the second instance of female execution in the country’s history, following Rattan Bai Jain, who was executed for murdering three girls.
Furlough Controversy: A New Legal Battle
With their death sentence commuted, the Gavit sisters shifted their legal efforts toward securing furlough—a temporary release from prison. While furlough is a right granted to all prisoners to maintain family ties or handle personal affairs, their application was met with resistance from prison authorities. Authorities deemed both women to be a “flight risk,” arguing that they were highly likely to escape if released.
Seema Gavit’s furlough plea was heard before the Bombay High Court, while Renuka Shinde’s application remained pending. The prison authorities, including the Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons and Reforms, firmly rejected their furlough requests.
The legal debate intensified when the Bombay High Court sought clarity on whether the Supreme Court’s ruling—sentencing the sisters to life without remission—automatically barred them from furlough and parole. Advocates representing the sisters argued that furlough was not a form of remission but rather a rehabilitative right granted based on good conduct. However, the state maintained that their case was exceptional, and releasing them posed a severe security risk.
What Lies Ahead?
As the legal proceedings continue, one thing remains clear—the Gavit sisters’ case is far from over. With pending furlough decisions and the state government’s challenge to the High Court’s commutation ruling before the Supreme Court, their fate remains uncertain. Their crimes, trial, and subsequent legal battles have set multiple precedents in India’s legal system, igniting debates on the fairness of capital punishment, the responsibility of the state in mercy petitions, and the rights of convicts serving life imprisonment.
The coming months will likely bring more legal twists as the courts weigh the sisters’ requests against the severity of their past actions. Whether or not they will ever set foot outside Yerwada Jail remains a question that only time will answer.
Stay tuned for the next episode, where we explore more legal complexities and the social impact of this case.
About The Author
