mockery of law

Adv P & H High Court Chandigarh

Whether or not the Madras High Court has erred in staying the execution of T Suthethiraja alias Santhan, Sriharan alias Murugan and G Pasarivalan alias Arivudeath, held guilty for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in the summer of 1991 is a matter of debate among jurists. But on the face of it, the court cannot be faulted for taking note of the petition filed by the three men who, after spending more than a decade on death row have been told that their mercy petition to the President has been rejected, are now seeking clemency on the ground that much too long a time has transpired since their verdict was handed down. In fact, the three condemned men and their fourth associate, Nalini, who has been granted clemency, have been in prison for two decades. A person sentenced to life imprisonment for murder would normally be entitled for remission after 20 years. It could be argued that the assassination of a Prime Minister is not just any murder case, and hence the fact that 11 years have lapsed since the conviction is irrelevant: Retribution demands that they should pay with their lives for the horrendous crime they committed.

 

 

Those who take this view should also bear in mind that retribution, as justice, should be both swift and decisive. The purpose of retribution as a form of punishment and deterrent is defeated if it is delayed for years (in this case for more than a decade) by an indecisive political leadership which cannot make up its mind whether those found guilty of committing a capital offence are deserving of the state's mercy. For although mercy petitions are filed with the President, it is the Government which takes the decision and conveys it to Rashtrapati Bhavan. Tragically, two successive regimes, the NDA and the UPA, failed to act decisively while dealing with mercy petitions, because of which a large number of death row convicts have been left dangling between hope and despair. Now that the Government has decided to clear the pending files, it could prove to be a little too late, allowing death row convicts to raise issues that the courts cannot entirely ignore, as was demonstrated on Tuesday in Chennai.


That the debate over inordinate delays in dealing with mercy petitions will only get increasingly intense in the coming days is indicated by the fact that the Madras High Court's order is the third of its kind. Tuesday's intervention follows similar orders by the Supreme Court in the case of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar and by the Guwahati High Court in the case of MN Das. In all three cases, the judiciary has essentially raised the issue of the executive's lapse in expeditiously dealing with mercy petitions. The Supreme Court has in the past mentioned the need for fixing the period of time that can be allowed to the executive for deciding whether or not convicts are deserving of mercy. That should be done, or else the death penalty should be removed from the statute book. It is a mockery of the law if the death penalty is applied to sentences meted out to perpetrators of heinous crimes and then the sentence is kept in abeyance for decades simply because the executive is either reluctant to carry out the punishment or indifferent to the need to punish criminals.

 
Reply   
 

Madras High Court is very much right. In a horrificly corrupt and hypocritical society like that of India, where the chances of nexus between legislature, executive and judiciary are extremely high, the chances of judicial murder due to various reasons are very much possible, removal of death penalty from statute books should be the first thing to be done.
 
Reply   
 


practicing advocate

Afzal Guru and Kasab will survive.  It is the political gimmick.

 
Reply   
 
Retired

They brazenly support LTTE.

 
Reply   
 
Practice in The High Court of Chhattisgarh

Adv.Rjeev (rajoo) is right.

 
Reply   
 
ADVOCATE MEDIATOR & TAX CONSULTANT

Perpetrators of heinous crimes should be punished with death penalty otherwise there will be no fear to such preparators to commit such offences. But the sentence should not be  kept in abeyance for decades simply because the executive is either reluctant to carry out the punishment or indifferent to the need to punish criminals. As per the Supreme Court a law is required to be passed fixing the period of time that can be allowed to the executive for deciding whether or not convicts are deserving of mercy. Otherwise, the Preparators of heinous crimes will be physically & mentally tortured for decades pending their mercy petitions and finally they wiill get death penalty if their mercy petitions are decided against them.

 
Reply   
 

Does any one know what happened to Bhopal Gas Tragedy case? Has anyone ever worried about the thousands of fellow citizen victims? Where is the justice for indian citizens living in India?

 

Bhopal gas tragedy: 8 found guilty, get bail

 

TNN Jun 7, 2010, 04.53pm IST http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-06-07/india/28298851_1_bhopal-gas-tragedy-toxic-gas-leak-indian-court

BHOPAL: The seven Indian Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) officials convicted in the 26-year-old Bhopal gas tragedy case have been granted bail and released on submission of a surety of Rs 25,000 by a trial court in Bhopal, according to a Times Now report.

Earlier on Monday, eight accused, one of whom is deceased, were sentenced to two years in prison for causing death due to negligence.

Reacting to the development, representatives of the tragedy's victims and their families who have been protesting outside the court, said they would approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court to allow the slapping of more stringent charges against all those accused in the case.

The Magistrate court in Bhopal on Monday convicted all eight Indians accused in the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy case. A Rs 500,000 fine has been imposed on UCIL.

Toxic gas leak from a Union Carbide pesticide factory in 1984 killed thousands and left an unspecified number battered with diseases and deformity - the toll of victims is still rising.

Despite Monday's conviction, there is little closure for victims. Legal experts have alleged that there was an attempt to cover up the case. It took the CBI three long years to file a chargesheet that many believed was weak. Then in 1996 the charges were watered down making all sections carry the maximum punishment of 2 years.

The charges were also all bailable and with the prime accused in the case - former Union Carbide ( USA) chairman Warren Anderson still on the run and unlikely to present himself in Indian court, there is little hope that justice will be served.

  

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu

Indian Evidence Act     |    x