After
the death sentence and execution of Yakub Memon, one of the accused in the
Mumbai blasts case a number of human rights activists brought out the argument
that the death penalty should be abolished altogether in India.
Their
quote is that 105 countries in the world have abolished death sentences, and as
no one can give life, no one should take life either.
Let
us examine the issue with the statistics available on Wikipedia.
Since the year 2000, 1617 prisoners were sentenced to death by the trial
courts in India, but the capital punishment was confirmed by the higher courts
in only 71 cases.
Since 1997, only 9 death sentences were carried
out. People are being rarely executed now and that too only for the most
inhuman and heinous offences.
In 2004 Dhananjay Chaterjee was hanged for raping and killing
a 14 year old girl. It took 14 years for the law to catch up with the crime as
it was committed in 1990.
In the case of Ajmal kasab, the justice was swifter. For the
Mumbai terrorist attack committed in 2008 along with Pakitsani terrorists he
was hanged in Nov 2012.
Afzal Guru attacked the parliament in 2001 and was hanged for
it in Feb 2013.
The courts took a long long time in the case of Yakub Memon.
The crime was committed in 1993 but he could be hanged only in 2015.
The Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court of India in the case of Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980)
made it very clear that Capital punishment in India can be given only in the
rarest of rare cases.
In February 2014 , Supreme Court commuted death sentence of Rajiv Gandhi Killers on the basis of 11-year delay in deciding on mercy plea. It was subsequently commuted to life
imprisonment.
In March 2014, Supreme Court of India commuted death
sentence of Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, convict in 1993 Delhi bomb blast case to life imprisonment, both on
the ground of unexplained/inordinate delay of 8 years in disposal of mercy
petition and on the ground of insanity/mental illness/schizophrenia.
After the award of the death sentence by a trial court, the
sentence must be confirmed by a High Court to make it final. Once confirmed, the condemned convict
has the option of appealing to the Supreme Court. If this is not possible, or
if the Supreme Court turns down the appeal or refuses to hear the petition, the
condemned person can submit a ‘mercy petition’ to the President of India and
the Governor of the State.
Our presidents have been inordinately lax in disposing of
mercy petitions and no urgency is seen to dispose them immediately. One wonders
why it should take a President years and years simply to decide on the mercy
petition. There should be a time period within which the petition is to be
disposed off. The President who is the theoretical head of the Government
should speed up and not delay justice.
It is to the credit of Pranab Mukerjee that he rejected 24
mercy petitions in good time after he took office and these included those of
Ajmal Kasab, Afzal guru and Yakub Memon. In June 2012 the then President
Pratibha Patil has converted the death sentences of 35 people into life
imprisonment.
If indeed a death sentence is abolished even for the most
hardcore criminals and converted into a death sentence, then what would be the
repercussions?
1. Suppose
the criminal escapes from prison and kills more people later, then who would be
responsible?
2.
Suppose
the criminal is released on parole and kills more people later, then who would
be responsible?
Okay, we agree that since life could not be given, it should
not be taken also. But is the criminal empowered to take lives totally against
this principle and should he then be fed by the state from its revenues? Is
this what we call justice?
Serious crime is of 2 different types. One that is committed
in a fit of emotion impulsively due to relationships and the other that is
committed deliberately with intent to harm people that are totally unconnected with
them for personal or ideological benefit. The former variety is dangerous but
only to the people connected to them but the latter are a threat to the society
and the country as a whole. It is these people who should not be spared because
the society cannot let a threat to itself exist perennially till their natural
death. Of late only the latter variety is the persons who are getting executed in
India and our courts have done an eminent job despite the delays.
The last 4 executions (just 4 in 11 years time) prove that
India does not need a ban on death penalty. It has gone beyond that and made it
very selective which is much more correct and refined than a blanket ban. In
fact it is those 105 countries that have abolished death penalty that should
hold India as an example to emulate rather than the other way round.
