Mahendra Nath Das’s mercy plea: Why SC commuted his death sentence


, TNN | May 3, 2013,

Mahendra Nath Das’s mercy plea: Why SC commuted his death sentence
Former President APJ Abdul Kalam had in 2005 favoured commutation of Mahendra Nath Das’s death penalty to life term.
 t

NEW DELHI: Revealing the casual manner in which mercy petitions are dealt with, theSupreme Court found that former President APJ Abdul Kalam’s 2005 note favouring commutation of Mahendra Nath Das’s death penalty to life term was never placed before his successor Pratibha Patil, who rejected Das’s mercy plea in 2011.

This and the 12-year delay in deciding Das’s mercy plea were cited by a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya to commute hisdeath sentence to life term on Wednesday.

Kalam had considered the mercy petition in light of the recommendation made by the home minister and passed an order on September 30, 2005, saying, “I have considered the mercy petition proposal sent for my consideration in respect of Mahendra Nath Das. I find that though the crime committed was of a gruesome nature, yet the conduct of the accused does not show trace of pre-meditated murder. The crime can well be attributed to a gross lack of mental equanimity on his part.”

Kalam continued, “In such circumstances, his mercy petition in my view, be accepted and his death sentence commuted to life-long imprisonment (that is for the rest of his life). During his further incarceration in prison, he may be given periodic counseling by spiritualist and moral leaders which could help reform his personality and mental psyche. This may be considered.”

Apart from the delay in considering the mercy plea, the bench of Justices Singhvi and Mukhopadhaya noticed that the home ministry had prepared another note on Das’s mercy plea on October 5, 2010, with reference to Kalam’s note.

But “what was most intriguing” was that while making a recommendation on October 12, 2010 to Patil for rejection of Das’s mercy plea, the home minister did not mention Kalam’s note of September 30, 2005. “Why this was done has not been explained by the respondents,” the bench said.

“Omission to make a mention of the order passed by her predecessor and note dated September 30, 2005 from the summary prepared for her consideration leads to an inference that the President was kept in the dark about the view expressed by her predecessor and was deprived of an opportunity to objectively consider the entire matter,” Justice Singhvi, who authored the judgment, said.

“Therefore, it must be held that the President was not properly advised and assisted in the disposal of the petition filed by Das,” the bench said.

“In the above backdrop, we are convinced that 12 years delay in the disposal of Das’s mercy petition was sufficient for commutation of the sentence of death and the division bench of the (Guwahati) high court committed serious error by dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground that he was found guilty of committing heinous crime,” the bench said.

“The rejection of Das’s mercy petition is declared illegal and quashed and sentence of death awarded to him by the trial court, which has been confirmed by the high court and this court is commuted into life imprisonment,” it added.

 

#India – Download the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act #Vaw


Ink pink... Bullies stink!

 

The New Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act   came into effect on April 23, 2013.

 

Under the Act, employers’ organisations must have mechanisms to address complaints of sexual harassment, and deal with such complaints within 90 days. Non-compliance of the law is punishable by a fine, and repeated non-compliance can lead to higher penalties and cancellation of the employer’s licence to conduct business.

 

The law comes 15 years after the Supreme Court’s historic Vishakha judgment in 1997.

 

The Vishakha judgment was incorporated into the Central Civil Services(Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, following the 1999 order on the Medha Kotwal case.

 

Download the Act here

 

 

 

India has a flawed notion of mercy #deathpenalty


By RAJEEV DHAVAN

PUBLISHED: 20:47 GMT, 21 April 2013

The quality of mercy varies from person to situation, but it is for all: the preferred rich and the unpreferred poor.

Dispensing mercy is a compassionate art with which India is out of touch. From 2001-2011, the death penalty was finally awarded to 1,455 persons. The higher courts commuted 4,321 death sentences into life imprisonment.

Delhi saw the judiciary commuting 99 per cent of the death penalties (2,462 cases). The commutation in other states was less dramatic – J-K (18), UP (458), MP (62), Bihar (343) Maharashtra (175), Jharkhand (300), Chhattisgarh (24), Assam (97), Odisha (68), Punjab (24), Rajasthan (33), Kerala (23), Tamil Nadu (24), Uttarakhand (46).

A flawed notion of mercy

The story is uneven, the data incomplete. But, it shows that the “rarest of rare” formula is not fully understood by the sessions or even higher court judges.

It is so easy to interpret the ‘rarest of rarest’ as including incessant killings, brutal deaths, torture and gender violation. These have become inflexible categories beyond interpretation.

As soon as trial judges find that a case falls in these broad categories, they award the death penalty. In at least half the cases, the death sentence is commuted by the High Courts. Then the issues get narrower as we go to the Supreme Court, which has a confused record veering towards the death penalty in terrorist and gruesome cases.

By the time the matter reaches the President, the decision becomes political and taints mercy.

Formula

A huge amount of time elapses between the criminal ‘event’ and the death penalty. In the Bombay blasts, the interval was two decades. In the Parliament case, more than a decade. On 6 April 2013, the CBI Court awarded the death penalty to three policemen 31 years after the fake encounter case in the Gonda district of U.P.

What happened during these years? How do you judge culpability three decades old? Or apply the ‘rarest of rare’ formula?

This is an important flaw in the ‘rarest of rare’ formula. When do you apply it? In relation to the criminal event? The trial court’s decision? The High Court‘s decision? The Supreme Court’s decision? At judicial levels, the decision is ‘event-based’ – with very little allowance for repentance in sentencing.

Beyond the judicial level, the same “event based” formula is applied in pardon cases with a political twist. Communal voices ask for death – wondering whether Caesar will put his thumb up or down. The crowd or the populace roars for death. It is a brave Caesar or President to turn down the crowd or the politics of the aftermath. The discourse on mercy is eclipsed.

Our system is no better. But to return to the question of when we apply the ‘rarest of rare’ formula. Is it essentially “criminal event” based? But does nothing change over time? Remember Heraclitus saying: “You cannot cross the same river twice.” And Cratylus adding: “You cannot even cross it once.”

Ten years is a long time. Twenty or thirty years, even more. Will we always judge the crime and never the person? Or a person as an adjunct to the crime? Must all Pakistani Kashmiri militants die? They will not retract from their beliefs. But over time, they change – some repent, some cannot say that they do.

The mercy of the presidential office has become irrelevant. The Supreme Court’s reprieve from President Pranab Mukherjee’s refusal to pardon 8 persons was brief. At this post-pardon stage, the Supreme Court limits its inquiry to whether the President acted malafide.

Significantly, Pranab’s predecessors forced the Home Minister to think. President Patil rejected 3 pleas in 5 years including in the Bhullar car bomb case of 1993, Rajiv’s killers, and a beheading incident. Kalam rejected Dhananjoy’s pleas from Calcutta. Narayan rejected no mercy pleas. The present presidential dispensation refusing pardon for death row is inexplicable. The system is all wrong, its understanding of mercy and just punishment too limited. Mercy is about the person not just the event.

Sanjay Dutt

Granted more time: Actor Sanjay Dutt during shooting of the film 'Policegiri' at a studio in Mumbai Granted more time: Actor Sanjay Dutt during shooting of the film ‘Policegiri’ at a studio in Mumbai

The bottom line is: we have a system of punishment but not mercy, of legicide by the state, but little or no reprieve. There is parole for those serving sentences. Only silence for the dead.

The latest twist in the Sanjay Dutt case, giving him time for four weeks, must make us think. The good part is that before imprisonment everyone has unfinished business. More important than Sanjay, a woman who has to make provision for her children, or for the old. A sick person whose needs hospital treatment. In this list, the businessman or actor who has to fulfill a contract must come lower down.

But what the Sanjay precedent suggests is the need for a new penology so that everyone is allowed a furlough to complete some part of their unfinished obligations before their prison sentence. The bad part of the Sanjay decision was that it gave the impression of favouring the rich and famous.

Impact

We are a troubled and violent society. Awarding death sentences adds to the violence without deterrent effect. The proof is that thousands of homicides are un-reported. Violence is unabated. If India decides that punishment deserves that a tooth must be broken for a tooth, the incidence of death penalty will increase to no avail.

Our retributive system of punishment looks at the crime and extracts revenge: usko zinda matt chodho (don’t let him live). Then, the state assumes a right to kill, rightly denied to its citizens. Our system lacks mercy and, therefore, justice.

The writer is a Supreme Court lawyer

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2312545/India-flawed-notion-mercy.html#ixzz2RBjLdArm
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Narendra Modi Attacks His Henchmen-Chanakya and Machiavelli Rolled into One



By Badri Raina

Friday, April 19, 2013
MODI1
Epigraph                               I have no spur

To prick the sides of my intent, but only

Vaulting ambition, which o’erleaps itself

And falls on th’other—

(Macbeth, I,vii)
“Intent” you will see is the horse that Macbeth wishes to ride to the glory of the Scottish throne.  And the only spur he has to race that horse is his “ambition. “ Wretchedly, he recognizes this to be a “vaulting” ambition, and as in gymnastics, the momentum of intent in the athelete carries the gymnast past the vault to fall on the other side.  Such Macbeth acknowledges to himself to be the force of his wanting, one inherently slated to “overleap” into disaster.

I have from very early on sought  in the career of Macbeth a prescient type of the modern day fascist imagination, and sought to draw lessons from  Shakespeare’s exploration  for our understanding of our own Narendra Modi phenomenon.

In one word, these are demonstrations of unmitigated self-regard that assumes to itself the right to trample the world to the pulpit of absolutism, sustained by a Dionysian/Nietzschean drive to the high morality of denying the powerless the right to exist at all.  And getting to that goal  without being hostage to any loyalty, if such loyalty thwarts the attainment. Thus, if Dionysus and Nietzsche define the goal—be thou the superman, and let women, the chosen ones, be the begetters of supermen, and eliminate all the rest—Chanakya and Machiavelli, bringing the East and West together, show the ways to the goal.

How else may one explain the stunning news now coming out of Gandhinagar, capital of Gujarat, to wit that he government there (read Modi) means to approach the courts for enhancement of the life sentences of Maya Ben Kodnani and Babu Bajrangi—two of  Modi’s most blindly devoted action hands (recalling the murderers who are shown in such intimacy with Macbeth?)—to death sentences.

You have to do nothing more than resurrect the Tehelka Sting Operation Report (see Tehelka online for august 29, 2012 and September, 08, 2012 for all the self-confessed details by Babu Bajrangi of his intimacy with Modi through the days of the Gujarat carnage—“Narendra Bhai nahi hote  na to hum log bahar hi nahi nikaltee” (had narendra modi not been behind us we could not ventured out to the  killings at all, referring here to the Naroda Patiya massacre of some ninety or more muslims where Bajrangi and Kodnani were found to be the chief butchers).”

Further, in translation, “it was only because of him (Modi)…otherwise who would have dared…it is all his handiwork…for if he gave instructions to police, they would have screwed our happiness.”  Again “but for Modi, neither Patia nor Gulberg  (where one of the victims sent to brutal wrack was a congress party member of parliament, Ehsan Jaffri, incidentally a fine scholar of Sanskrit literature, among other things, and whose devastated widow, Zakia Jaffri has now filed a Protest Petition in the local court contesting the conclusions drawn by the Supreme Court- appointed Special Investigation Team—SIT—headed by an erstwhile head of the country’s premier investigating agency, the CBI  on the basis of new evidence of wireless messages and call details of frantic efforts by policemen on the ground on feb.,27 and 28 to persuade their superiors of the carnage that was already underway but denied by Modi’s chief law enforcement officers, barring some outstanding ones who later were to pay for their loyalty to their oath of duty.

It will be recalled that one of Modi’s ministerial colleagues, late Haren Pandya, had testified secretly to a civil society instituted panel of enquiry comprising three outstanding judges of the higher courts to the effect that Modi had, allegedly, at a meeting on the 27th with his core team of loyalists decreed a no action and hindrance course to be  followed the next day when the VHP -called and BJP- supported  Bandh call was to be implemented.  Pandya was found out and killed shortly after.  More recently, Sanjiv Bhat, an IPS officer, at one time close to Modi, has testified that he was actually present at that crucial meeting, corroborating what the late Pandya had said.  He was suspended, then subjected to multiple legal harassments, like some of the other upright officers, like Rahul Sharma, who had stood up for the right and proper.

Meanwhile, Bajrangi, in that Tehelka Sting confession was to go on to laud his mentor Modi for stage-managing his arrest after he had been absconding for four months, and to say how “Modi manipulated the Gujarat judiciary to get him bailed out.”  (The SIT took no cognizance of these confessions.  Also to underline that the Supreme Court in its remarks on the SIT closure report which thought there was no prosecutable evidence againt Modi  had averred trenchantly that the SIT’s  findings and conclusions seemed at complete loggerheads, which is the reason that the Supreme Court  ordered the separate report filed by the Court’s Amicus, a highly reputed senior advocate who opined that Modi infact could be prosecuted on the SIT’s findings such as they were  to be made part of the record and passed on to the complainant.

Maya Ben Kodnani  was only a member of the state assembly when the Narodia Patia massacre happened under her gleeful watch and direction.  And ah, so dear to Modi that she was subsequently inducted into his cabinet of ministers!

Babu Bajrangi was sentenced to full life in prison, and Kodnani to 28years in the slammer, where they cool their heels as we speak.

Think of the background above, and imagine that the same Modi should now be seeking enhancement of their sentences to death.  “O brave new world that hath such creatures in it.” (Tempest)

A flurry of speculation is now underway, and much of it germane.  That on the seeming threshold of a call to leap to the centre of India’s political control come the next hustings in 2014, this is Macbeth-Modi’s way of saying what  a secularist he is after all, with justice for the minority Muslims dearest to his heart.  Catch: why now? And why in relation to two of his most devoted hatchet loyalists?

Here is what seems most likely to be the motivation:  the Protest Petition filed by Zakaia Jaffri ,  replete with damning evidence that the Gujarat government had hitherto claimed to have been destroyed, and much of which the SIT had concealed, refusing to hand over all its papers to the complaining widow until directed by the Supreme Court to do so with rectitude and promptness, is due to come up in the local Gujarat court on April 24.  News of the Gujarat government’s intent to seek enhancement of sentence on Bajrangi and Kodnani came a day after the filing of the Protest Petition, long after time lawfully allowed for such revisions of sentence  to  be sought.

This may well be the onset of the last act of Macbeth:  should the court in Gujarat, in view of the new evidence of damining complicity adduced in the Petition, take cognizance of the materials now before it, the only recourse for it may be to order the framing of charges against the 59 accused named by the complainant, Zakia Jaffri.  And the first accused in that list is Narendra Modi.

Time therefore to argue before the court that a chief minister who is seeking enhancement of sentence on two  convicted colleagues who had been as close to him as all the background etched above suggests, regardless of being staunch Hindutva votaries and cuthroats, could hardly have been guilty of complicity in the massacre of Muslims in the first place, could he?

Desperate times, desperate remedies, decreed both Chanakya and Machiavelli as courses to undertake by the one who would be Prince.

It is a sort of throw of the dice that we see increasingly happen towards the denoument in Macbeth.  Already a chorus of disapproval of Modi’s  “vaulting ambition” to be prime minister, at least prime ministerial candidate of his party which he thinks little of anyway and has decimated in his own state, grows louder not only among some of BJP’s chief and oldest allies, but within the BJP itself.

The engineered hype around Modi—engineered chiefly by India’s corporate electronic  channels on the chamber music swell of India’s new urban elites, all of whom see this now as the moment to dismantle the Weimar republic; enough of democracy, bring in the war-mongering superman—thus is now at woeful loggerheads with Modi’s  increasingly rougher truck and likely upcommance with the law, and  with the factually limited expanse of his acceptability among the polity at large, about eighty percent of which exists outside the worlds of the social media, and is devoted to imperatives that have little to gain from fascist consolidation.

Simmering, and not so simmering, speculation is also under way since this news has come of how this seeking of enhancement of sentence on Bajrangi and Kodnani may play among the hard core cadre Hindutva support for Modi, within and outside Gujarat.

It may not be anymore such a well-kept secret that Modi’s  consecutive successes at the husting s n Gujarat have had little to do with claims of “development’, real or propagated—the stuffing of these claims has lately been taken out with calculated invocation of facts country wide, and Gujarat has been found to be  lagging in the ranks, be it in GDP growth, per capita income, or FDI inflows, not to speak of its abysmal  record on malnutrition, gender ratio, anaemia among lactating women, and now a fatal lack of water accessibility to vast stretches of the state  from whence tales of horrendous suffering arrive everyday—but with the silent fact that he is credited with having achieved that which even the RSS and other strident sartraps of the Hindutva tradition  never did achieve, namely, subjugating, then relegating, Gujarat’s  Muslims with ruthless intent, and without fear, regret, or rethink, refusing for example to wear the Muslim skull cap offered him at  his  socalled  “sadhbhavna” (harmony/reconciliation meet), and generally having sought with firm resolve to turn Gujarat into the sort of Hindutva land that the RSS chief, Golwalker, had envisioned in his 1938 book, Bunch of Thoughts, in which a whole chapter is titled  “Enemy number one” namely, the Muslims.

Given that context, it is more than likely that Modi’s  move to have Bajrangi  and Kodnani sent to the gallows may cause the deepest  shock of recognition and heartburn among his Hindutva cadres.  To think now that this man could, for his “vaulting ambition” think nothing of dispatching  his dear old loyalists as so often so  eloquently is done by the successful  individualists of the Shakespearean Renaissance.  This will be galling indeed, and cannot but have decisive electoral fallouts.

There may also be some truth to the speculation that Modi may have inkling that Bajrangi and Kodnani may spill some further beans on their own behalf.  What better course than to project them now as unbecoming of earthly existence altogether.

Among these dark happenings, though, is the sterling light that shines from the corner opposed to Modi in these legal wrangles.  They, all human rights activists at heart, have said they oppose the death penalty and, oppose it even if it be a Bajrangi or a Kodnani.  Halelujah!  You show the way.

Clearly  the days ahead will be full of interest.  The local court in Gujarat due to begin hearing the Protest Petition on April 24 means to carry on a day to day basis.  Thus its determination of the new evidence and its decision should not take long in coming.

Whichever way that goes, there will no doubt be fresh appeals all the way again to  the apex court.  But should the lower court seek to frame charges, a sea change cannot but happen  both in the Modi saga and in the larger politics of Hindutva that  has been so strident since 2002, and hand-in-glove, one might note with market fundamentalism and India’s  affluenet diaspora in the West.

Fingers crossed.  May justice not only prevail but be seen to prevail.

 

Asian Centre for Human Rights cites Mahendra case, seeks mercy for Bhullar #deathpenalty


bhullar

TNN | Apr 19, 2013,

GUWAHATI: The Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) on Thursday submitted a fresh mercy plea to President PranabMukherjee seeking commutation of the death sentence of condemned prisoner Devender Singh Bhullar to life imprisonment. The rights body argued that since another prisoner on death row, MahendranathDas of Assam, had his mercy plea considered by two Presidents, Bhullar should also be given the same benefit.”There is already a precedent for the President of India to reconsider a mercy plea twice. The mercy plea of death row convict Mahendra Nath Das of Assam was considered twice as shown from the minutes of the Rashtrapati Bhawan supplied under the RTI Act,” ACHR director Suhas Chakma said.

Das committed the first murder in 1990 and while he was out on bail in 1996, he committed the second murder. In 1997, a trial court sentenced him to death for the two counts of murder. Das’s appeal was rejected by the high court in 1998 and by the Supreme Court in 1999. He is still waiting for the execution of his death sentence as his petition questioning the delay in his hanging for 16 years is pending in Supreme Court.

The RTI document states that former President Abdul Kalam on September 30, 2005, had accepted Das’s mercy plea and had advised the home ministry to consider extending clemency to him. Kalam had sent a communication to the home minister noting that the conduct of Das did not show trace of pre-meditated murder and that the crime might have been committed due to lack of mental equanimity and advised the home minister to consider extending the benefit of clemency to Das and added that during his incarceration in prison, he may receive periodic counselling to reform his personal and mental psyche.

However, the same recommendation was recalled by Kalam on October 5, 2005 and when he demitted office on July 24, 2007, Kalam noted that the case may be put up to his successorPratibha Patil, who subsequently rejected the mercy petition.

Das had earlier submitted his mercy petition to former President K R Narayanan in 1999 and the then home minister L K Advani had recommended rejection of the petition. Narayanan did not take any decision on the petition during his tenure and the same was put up to his successor, Kalam.

“If Das’s mercy plea could be reviewed twice, there is no reason as to why Bhullar’s mercy plea cannot be considered afresh.” Chakma said.

Giving 10 grounds for the consideration, the AHRC called upon the Centre India to commute Bhullar’s death sentence to life imprisonment, declare a moratorium on death penalty and set up an expert committee to consider ways and means for final abolition of death penalty.

 

SC slams brakes on Vedanta’s Niyamgiri project #GOODNEWS #tribalrights #PESA


NDTV , April 18, 2013

New DelhiThe Supreme Court has continued a ban on bauxite mining in the Niyamgiri Hills in Odisha considered sacred by tribals.

In a verdict that appears to recognize the rights of forest-dwelling Dongria-Kondh tribals to have a say in  projects that affect their habitat,  economic development and culture,  the Supreme Court has said that it’s up to  the  gram sabhas or local self-governments to decide if the Niyamgiri Hills are home to their deity. They have been asked to share their decision within three months with the union Environment Ministry.

The mining project is  a joint venture between UK-Based Vedanta Resources which is controlled by billionaire Anil Aggarwal  and the state government.  It is meant to supply bauxite, the main raw material for aluminium, to an alumina refinery it has set up  at Lanjigarh in the Kalahandi district, about 450 kilometres from state capital.   The refinery was shut in December because of a shortage of bauxite.

In 2011, the union government had refused environmental clearances to the mining project.

The Odisha government had challenged the centre’s decision in the Supreme Court, because it stood to lose thousands of crores in investment.

 

 

It was “most inappropriate” and “judicial error” to confirm death sentence in Prof. Bhullar’s case: Public Prosecutor


Free Professor Devender Pal Singh Bhullar

By 

Published: April 18, 2013. sikhsiyasat.com
    • New Delhi, India (April 18, 2013): It is a known fact that Prof. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar was sentenced to death by the trial court solely on the basis of a fractured and uncorroborated confessional statement extracted by the Delhi police in custody through torture. Prof. Bhullar’s case was heard by three judges bench of the Supreme Court of India, that confirmed the conviction in a split decision – with majority of 2:1.

Free Professor Devender Pal Singh Bhullar

Free Professor Devender Pal Singh Bhullar

Justice M. B. Shah – the presiding judge of the three judges bench had acquitted Prof. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar; while two other judges Arijit Pasyat, J. and Aggarwal, J. had confirmed the death sentence.

The 2002 decision of the Supreme Court of India, confirming death punishment in a split decision was being view as a “judicial error” – and it was expected that the President of India would take it’s notice while deciding the constitutional review petition. The President of India took eight years to decide the petition moved on behalf of Prof. Bhullar but suffered the failure to take notice of the judicial error and cleared the execution of Prof. Bhullar in 2011.

In it’s recent judgement declared on April 12, 2013 the Supreme Court of India has again upheld the death sentence awarded to Prof. Bhullar.

It seems as if whole Indian system has turned blind eye towards the “judicial error” committed in this case. But there are few dissenting voices also that have dared to oppose the ominous unity among various organs of the state favouring execution of Prof. Bhullar.

Recently, the Press Council of India’s chairman Justice Markandey Katju wrote a detailed letter to the President of India. Citing the basic flaws in the decision confirming death sentence in Prof. Bhullar’s case; J. Katju has demanded pardon for Prof. Bhullar.

As per recent media reports Senior Advocate Anoop G. Chaudhari, who was the public prosecutor against Prof. Bhullar while his case was being heard by the SCI in 2002, has admitted that the minority judgement of Justice M. B. Shah acquitting Prof. Bhulalr was good in merit.

According to a news report by Times of India:

“[t]hough two of the three judges on the Supreme Court bench upheld his arguments, senior advocate Anoop G. Chaudhari said that he found himself agreeing with the dissenting verdict delivered by the presiding judge, M. B. Shah, who had actually acquitted Bhullar”.

“Surprising as it may sound, I believe that Shah was right in not accepting my submissions in support of the trial court’s decision to convict Bhullar in a terror case, entirely on the basis of his confessional statement to the police,” Chaudhari reportedly told TOI.

“Shah refused to acquiesce to the Delhi police’s presumption that they had a lot of margin for shoddy investigation because of the involvement of terror”

Advocate Anoop G. Chaudhari

As per news report, a former advocate general of Madhya Pradesh, Chaudhari also said that it was “most inappropriate” for the majority verdict, delivered by Justice Arijit Pasayat, to have awarded death sentence to Bhullar despite the acquittal by a member of the same bench.

In any event, this “judicial error”, he said, should have been taken by the home ministry as a “strong ground” for commuting the death penalty, when it made its recommendation to the President on Bhullar’s mercy petition in 2011.

“Did the home ministry think that the acquittal by a Supreme Court judge was meaningless?” Chaudhari asked.

But how could he be saying all these things in Bhullar’s favour, given his own role in the case? “After the judgement is delivered, I read it as a student of law and not a lawyer who appeared for one or the other party,” Chaudhari said.

“If I can’t detach myself from the case and appreciate the judgement in its correct perspective, then I won’t be honest to my profession and my conscience”, he reportedly added.

One of the major infirmities in the prosecution’s case pointed out by Shah was the failure of the police to find any corroboration for Bhullar’s confessional statement to them, even he had retracted it.

“When Shah asked me about this lacuna during the hearings, I said that I could only argue what was on record and I could not step into the shoes of the investigating agency and explain why they had not taken the trouble of finding any corroborative evidence” Chaudhari said.

 

 

Statement- Commute DS Bhullar’s Death Sentence


Abolish Death Penalty

The Supreme Court verdict rejecting the plea for commutation of death sentence for DS Bhullar is most unfortunate. The case against DS Bhullar rested almost wholly on custodial confession. In 2002, when the majority bench of the SC upheld the death penalty for him, Justice Shah in his minority judgement had actually argued for acquittal, on the grounds that custodial confession was inadmissible as evidence. In a case where even guilt is in such doubt, there can be no justification for the death penalty.

In the past the Supreme Court has held that long delay in carrying out the sentence could be grounds for commutation of the sentence of death into life imprisonment. However, the Supreme Court this time has held otherwise. In doing so, the apex court, instead of judging the matter on the grounds of principles of justice, has instead invoked the growth of terrorism “in recent years.” How can a matter of principle be subject to change on the grounds of subjective opinions and assertions of judges?

The SC has also chosen to make comments against human rights activists, accusing them of raising “the bogey of human rights.” In the case of Bhullar, it was a judge of the Supreme Court, not a human rights activist, who had called even his conviction into doubt on the grounds of insufficient evidence! If the Supreme Court considers ‘human rights’ as a ‘bogey’, which institution is there to check the state from riding roughshod on human rights?

Last year, 14 retired judges wrote to the President of India, admitting that the Supreme Court had wrongly awarded the death sentence to 13 people. It is unacceptable in a democracy to risk such grave miscarriage of justice. Moreover, it is overwhelmingly those from marginalised sections of society who face the death penalty: offenders from privileged sections are rarely subjected to such punishment.

In the interests of justice, CPI(ML) demands that DS Bhullar’s sentence should be commuted. In the light of the inconsistency and bias in awarding of death sentence and grave errors in this regard admitted by retired judges of the Supreme Court, CPI(ML) supports the growing demand that India abolish the death penalty or at least honour the UN resolution to uphold a moratorium on death penalty with a view to its eventual abolition.  

CPI(ML) Central Committee

 

 

 

#Deathpenalty- resurfacing in #India – 16mercy petitions rejected in 9 months #WTFnews


Pranab Mukherjee Rejected 16 Mercy Petitions in 9 Months

NEW DELHI | APR 12, 2013, outlook
There was a long delay in deciding mercy pleas by the Presidents, which was also highlighted by the Supreme Court today, but the situation changed when Pranab Mukherjee took charge on July 25 last year, disposing of petitions of 16 condemned prisoners within nine months.The petitions for clemency filed by sandalwood smuggler Veerappan‘s elder brother Gnanaprakash and his aides Simon, Meesekar Madaiah and Bilavendran were rejected by Mukherjee on February 13. The four had then obtained a stay on their execution from the apex court on February 18.

Besides the four, the others whose mercy pleas have been rejected by the President since taking charge are — Suresh, Ramji, Gurmeet Singh, Praveen Kumar, Sonia and her husband Sanjeev, Sundar Singh, Jafar Ali, Dharampal and Saibanna Ningappa Natikar.

Except Dharampal and Natikar, the others had moved the apex court on April 6 and obtained a stay on their execution for four weeks.

Mukherjee also commuted the death sentence of two death row inmates, including Atbir, to life imprisonment.

Atbir was convicted for murder of his step-mother, step-sister and step-brother over property.

Dharampal was convicted for murdering five members of the family of a girl he had raped. He had committed the murders while out on parole in the rape case.

Sonia and Sanjeev were awarded death penalty for killing eight members of her family, including her parents and three children of her brother in 2001.

Gurmeet Singh was convicted of killing 13 of his family members in 1986. Jafar Ali had murdered his wife and five daughters. Suresh and Ramji killed five of their relatives.

Natikar was awarded death penalty for killing his wife and daughter, Praveen was convicted for killing four members of a family in February 1994 and Sundar Singh was convicted for murder of five members of his brother’s family in June 1989.

A recent study by Amnesty International reveals that death penalty resurfaced in India, during 2012, after a long lull in execution at the gallows, while several other nations are opting for penal system free of capital punishment.

Full Story:

In its recent report based on extensive study, Amnesty International has revealed that the death penalty has resurfaced in India in 2012.

Amnesty International claimed in London that the resumption of the death penalty was facilitated by public pressures and political motives in India.

[Jan Erik Wetzel, Death Penalty Advisor at Amnesty International]:
“The resumption of the executions in India is most likely based on a variety of reasons. One of which is public pressure and another one would be political considerations by the government in place.”

[Ravi Prakash, Senior Advocate]:
“Death sentence acts as a deterrent and therefore, death sentence has been retained in the Indian Penal Code and by our legal system. But the court has said that it should be given only in a very rare of the rarest circumstances and not keeping in view that way of the retribution, you are conferring the death sentence on anybody.”

In November, India carried out its first execution since 2004 when the country hanged Mohammad Ajmal Kasab, the lone survivor of the militant squad that killed 166 people in the 2008 attacks on the financial capital Mumbai.

Kasab’s execution sparked off celebrations across India.

People burst firecrackers and exchanged sweets among themselves to hail this execution as a justice for the victims of Mumbai attacks.

India had also recently approved a tougher new law to punish sex crimes, including death for repeat rape offenders, after the fatal gang rape of a student in December.

That event sparked unprecedented protests over the treatment of women in the country.

[Abhas Kumar, Student of New Delhi]:
Death punishment in India is necessary to warn and evoke fear in the minds of people. Criminal activities are increasing. Criminals here are not afraid to commit crimes because they feel that they will be released from jail in two or three days and above all, the trial against them takes a long time.”

The Amnesty International study said that besides India, executions resumed in other countries of the Asia-Pacific region including Japan and Pakistan, after it seemed that they had done away with the punishment.

 

To address sexual violence, begin with gender sensitisation of the police #Vaw #Womenrights


rape11

Outrage in Bulandshahr

The Indian Express : Fri Apr 12 2013, 02:15 hrs
Earlier this week, a 10-year-old Jatav girl was put behind bars at the Bulandshahr women’s police station. Her offence: she had gone to file a rape complaint. As reported in this paper, the girl, who lives with her parents in a village mainly populated by Rajputs, had allegedly been raped by a 35-year-old Rajput man on Sunday evening. The family has been under pressure to withdraw the case and move out of the village, a course of action supported by the village panchayat. Now the Supreme Court has expressed consternation at the abdication of duty by the police.

In the wake of the Delhi gangrape last December, calls for a more lasting change coalesced around a single, impatiently rushed through law — the Criminal (Amendments) Bill, 2012. While discussion on the provisions of the bill dominated the public discourse on rape, less attention has been paid to how law interacts with, and addresses, caste, class and gender biases, how it translates in different contexts, not just in the metros but also in smaller towns and villages. Law must operate within a matrix of local power relations heavily tilted against victims of sexual violence, especially those from lower castes. The police belong to this matrix, complicit in the interests and prejudices working within it. It is urgent, therefore, that issues such as gender sensitisation of the police and the non-registration of complaints are highlighted and addressed. Incidents such as the one in Bulandshahr point to the need for wider and deeper changes such as those recommended by the National Police Commission. While urging measures to de-link the police from the existing power structures and political interference, it also proposed a special cell to look into complaints of police insensitivity and intransigence coming from weaker sections of society, including SCs and STs.

The Bulandshahr scandal is a reminder that deliberation and discussion on sexual crimes cannot be whittled down to a single law. It must take into account a gamut of more difficult changes, social and institutional, that transform the way such crimes are perceived and their victims are addressed.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,849 other followers

%d bloggers like this: