established by law. Over the span of years, this Court has expanded the horizon of right to lifeguaranteed under the Constitution to balance with the progress of human life. This case provides yet another momentous occasion, where this Court is called upon to decide whether it will be in violation of Article 21, amongst other provisions, to execute the levied death sentence on the accused notwithstanding the existence of supervening circumstances. Let us examine the supervening circumstances of each individual case to arrive at a coherent decision. 2) All the above writ petitions, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, have beenfiled either by the convicts, who were awarded death sentence or by their family members or by public-spirited bodies like Peoples Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) basedon the rejection of mercy petitions by the Governor and the President of India. 3) In all the writ petitions, the main prayer consistently relates to the issuance of a writof declaration declaring that execution of sentence of death pursuant to the rejection of the mercy petitions by the President of India is unconstitutional and to set aside the death sentence