Disclaimer: First, read the article in the below link authored by one of the eminent professors of the nation, Ms. Usha Ramanathan. Only after reading her article, read my response.
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/the-disturbing-truth-about-an-execution/article4503120.ece
In the wake of the recent hangings of two dreaded terrorists – Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab and Mohammad Afzal Guru – many of the eminent columnists and experts have questioned the Government’s action of executing them under wraps. Few of them had even gone to the extent of questioning the legality/morality of imposing capital punishment/death penalty bestowed to Indian Judiciary by the law of our land, Constitution! More specifically, in response to Ms. Usha Ramanathan’s “The disturbing truth about an execution”, (Editorial page, March 13, 2013) I would like to throw light on the aam aadmi’s side of this poignant or rather, an unending debate.
The predominant factors to be considered in supporting my argument are - the plight of the victims, state of the judiciary and the Government’s functioning in the nation.
On the point mentioned by Ms. Usha that there is a violation to Article 21 [Protection of life and personal liberty] in case of Afzal Guru, I would like to question her if the Article 21 is applicable only to him and not to those victims who succumbed to the acts of such perpetrators. The plight of the victims is excruciatingly difficult to put in words. Their loss is irreplaceable and their living has largely been jeopardized due to such dastardly terror acts. For them, the best thing that can happen or the best thing they can expect from the Government is that the perpetrators of such crimes be stringently punished as per the law of the land. This was evident in the testimonies of the victims who spoke after the hanging of the above mentioned terrorists.
Situational decisions of the Government
Ms. Usha has pointed out at the deliberate breaches in the procedures prescribed in the Jail Manual. It is to her attention that the Government is ought to serve in the best interests of a nation. It should take the call (on implementation of execution) based on the then prevailing situations and the nature of the convict. Though it has not followed all the guidelines prescribed in the Jail Manual, it is bound to follow all the procedures laid down in constitution. And there is no where mentioned in the constitution that the secret executions are ‘unconstitutional’. Going by the responses and testimonies, the Government was commended by the large sections of the society for its act of executing these terrorists.
On the point mentioning that the Union Home Minister has acted illegally – As a matter of fact, the minister need not respond to the Government’s action of executing terrorists but he has responded and rightly defended the Government’s act by providing a proper reason. The execution of the Rajiv Gandhi killers was stayed by a judicial bench on the grounds of inordinate delay in disposing off their mercy petitions. Though the verdict is awaited (in Bhullar’s case), until that moment i.e., as on 9th February, 2013, the Government is not at all bound to stop its current functioning forecasting the verdict of the future cases. It is only after Afzal Guru’s execution, that a bench of apex court has ordered a stay on all the executions until its judgment in Bhullar’s case is pronounced.
And on point of Government tendering apology and providing reparation to the family of the terrorists, it shall be highly ignominious as such acts will only show the Government in poor light. In fact, it is the family members of the convicts, who should apologize on behalf of them to the families of the victims. These convicts of the terror acts should be unpardonable.
The state of Indian Judiciary
According to our rule of law, the judiciary provides an accused a fair trial. It first provides the accused, a defense counsel, then further appeals in the higher courts and only after several adjournments and deliberations, a capital punishment order is endorsed [only sections 121, 132, 194, 302, 305, 307, 364A, 396 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall attract death penalty]. That doesn’t end the story, for there are review petitions, clemency plea and finally a judicial review over that in case of a rejection. Also the number of executions carried out in India since 1995 till date only amount to a paltry four (Auto Shankar, Dhananjoy Chatterjee, Kasab, Afzal), whereas the death convicts number from 2007 to 2011 itself is around 435. The number rose to 476 as of February, 2013 (Source: Amnesty International). This number speaks of itself that how far the Indian Government is staying away from implementing the capital punishment and yet when it is obliging the judiciary’s orders in rarest of the rare cases, people are questioning its will. This will only reduce the crime deterrence rate in the criminals.
*******************************
In the wake of the recent hangings of two dreaded terrorists – Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab and Mohammad Afzal Guru – many of the eminent columnists and experts have questioned the Government’s action of executing them under wraps. Few of them had even gone to the extent of questioning the legality/morality of imposing capital punishment/death penalty bestowed to Indian Judiciary by the law of our land, Constitution! More specifically, in response to Ms. Usha Ramanathan’s “The disturbing truth about an execution”, (Editorial page, March 13, 2013) I would like to throw light on the aam aadmi’s side of this poignant or rather, an unending debate.
“A swift trial should not be at the cost of a fair trial” - these were the words spoken by the Chief Justice of India in the wake of the horrid Delhi gang rape case. But a fair trial should not be bereft of the Capital Punishment if the nature of the crime and also of the criminal demands to (the two precedents set in the state of Punjab vs Bachchan singh case). If a capital punishment was awarded to a convict after conducting a fair trial, whether it was implemented by the Government or not should be the matter of concern rather than how it was implemented. Obviously, the Government cannot change the procedures outright in implementation of the capital punishment.
On the point mentioned by Ms. Usha that there is a violation to Article 21 [Protection of life and personal liberty] in case of Afzal Guru, I would like to question her if the Article 21 is applicable only to him and not to those victims who succumbed to the acts of such perpetrators. The plight of the victims is excruciatingly difficult to put in words. Their loss is irreplaceable and their living has largely been jeopardized due to such dastardly terror acts. For them, the best thing that can happen or the best thing they can expect from the Government is that the perpetrators of such crimes be stringently punished as per the law of the land. This was evident in the testimonies of the victims who spoke after the hanging of the above mentioned terrorists.
Situational decisions of the Government
Ms. Usha has pointed out at the deliberate breaches in the procedures prescribed in the Jail Manual. It is to her attention that the Government is ought to serve in the best interests of a nation. It should take the call (on implementation of execution) based on the then prevailing situations and the nature of the convict. Though it has not followed all the guidelines prescribed in the Jail Manual, it is bound to follow all the procedures laid down in constitution. And there is no where mentioned in the constitution that the secret executions are ‘unconstitutional’. Going by the responses and testimonies, the Government was commended by the large sections of the society for its act of executing these terrorists.
On the point mentioning that the Union Home Minister has acted illegally – As a matter of fact, the minister need not respond to the Government’s action of executing terrorists but he has responded and rightly defended the Government’s act by providing a proper reason. The execution of the Rajiv Gandhi killers was stayed by a judicial bench on the grounds of inordinate delay in disposing off their mercy petitions. Though the verdict is awaited (in Bhullar’s case), until that moment i.e., as on 9th February, 2013, the Government is not at all bound to stop its current functioning forecasting the verdict of the future cases. It is only after Afzal Guru’s execution, that a bench of apex court has ordered a stay on all the executions until its judgment in Bhullar’s case is pronounced.
And on point of Government tendering apology and providing reparation to the family of the terrorists, it shall be highly ignominious as such acts will only show the Government in poor light. In fact, it is the family members of the convicts, who should apologize on behalf of them to the families of the victims. These convicts of the terror acts should be unpardonable.
The state of Indian Judiciary
According to our rule of law, the judiciary provides an accused a fair trial. It first provides the accused, a defense counsel, then further appeals in the higher courts and only after several adjournments and deliberations, a capital punishment order is endorsed [only sections 121, 132, 194, 302, 305, 307, 364A, 396 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall attract death penalty]. That doesn’t end the story, for there are review petitions, clemency plea and finally a judicial review over that in case of a rejection. Also the number of executions carried out in India since 1995 till date only amount to a paltry four (Auto Shankar, Dhananjoy Chatterjee, Kasab, Afzal), whereas the death convicts number from 2007 to 2011 itself is around 435. The number rose to 476 as of February, 2013 (Source: Amnesty International). This number speaks of itself that how far the Indian Government is staying away from implementing the capital punishment and yet when it is obliging the judiciary’s orders in rarest of the rare cases, people are questioning its will. This will only reduce the crime deterrence rate in the criminals.

