From death to life: Supreme Court does it right, AIADMK politicises it

The right to life is sacrosanct. This is the message from the Supreme Court which on Tuesday commuted the death sentence of three convicts — Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan — in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. The court rightly stated that an “inordinate and unreasonable” delay in the disposal of the mercy petitions of the convicts rendered the “process of execution of death sentence arbitrary, whimsical and capricious and, therefore, inexecutable”. The verdict is also proof that the judiciary’s outlook is in keeping with the international call for doing away with the death sentence or awarding it only in the ‘rarest of rare cases’ where there is irrefutable evidence.
After the Tamil Nadu governor had rejected the trio’s mercy petitions in April 2000, the ministry of home affairs submitted the mercy petitions for the President’s consideration in July 2005 — after a delay of more than five years. Finally, in September 2011 the President rejected their mercy petitions but by then the convicts had waited for agonising 11 long years. The apex court’s observation that a “mercy plea can be decided at much faster speed than what is being done now” is spot on and has been proved by the Centre, as in the hanging to death of Afzal Guru. Guru was convicted for the 2001 Parliament attack and in 2002 he was sentenced to death. In February 9, 2013, six days after the President rejected his mercy plea, Guru was hanged to death in a stealthy manner. Here all the systems came in to place and a decision was taken within a ‘reasonable time’.

While the apex court’s decision to commute the death sentence of the three to life is understandable, the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to seek the release all the seven convicts in the case is questionable. The AIADMK government, in its hurry to score a political point over its rivals, should not overlook the gravity of the crime. These seven people have been convicted for murder — in this case no less than the assassination of a former prime minister. Political parties should refrain from trying to make capital out of this issue to reap benefits in an election year. This sends a wrong signal and obscures the laudable objective of setting aside the death penalty.

Death Penalty: India moves a step closer to justice

The Supreme Court of India

It is the most inviolate of all rights, the right to life. This is why the death penalty raises such extreme emotions in those opposed to it. The penalty itself is a violation of Article 3 and 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that ‘Everyone has the right to life’ and the right to not be subject to ‘torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. While the death penalty is yet to be abolished in India and is awarded only in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases, the Supreme Court on Tuesday gave a landmark verdict which can be seen as moving a step closer to abolishing it. The apex court, while commuting the sentences of 15 death row prisoners to life imprisonment, said the “inordinate and inexplicable” delay in executing the sentences was akin to “torture” of the prisoner and was in violation of Article 21. The three-judge Bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh has also done a signal service in overruling the court’s earlier decision in the Devinderpal Singh Bhullar case that a delay on deciding on a mercy petition was not a ground on which a death sentence could be commuted. The apex court verdict, which makes it mandatory to give a gap of 14 days between the rejection of the mercy petition and execution, is definitely a welcome step as it will help the convict and the family to prepare for the final act.

Devinderpal Singh Bhullar

That the gallows are no deterrent to preventing crimes is proven fact if one looks at the nations that still resort to this medieval form of justice year after year. China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and even the United States, with 39 in 2013 alone, have a high number of  executions per year and yet there is little evidence to prove that it is acting as a deterrent. Given that there is a possibility of executing people who have been wrongly convicted, the cry for abolishing capital punishment is on the rise. Experts are of the opinion that given the cost involved and the amount of resources required for the process, it is wiser and much more effective if the State focuses on the prevention of crime.
Taking the life of a person with the sanction of the State, no matter the method of execution, is a reminder of how the system has failed. If India wants to grow and mature as a strong democracy, it should take befitting actions that earn it the respect of other nations. It is quite natural that the largest democracy in the world would seek more humane methods of preventing or punishing crime and set an example for others.

Four years of UPA2: Where's the party tonight?

Photo by AP

The Congress-led UPA, which completed four years into its second term, may not be popping open champagne bottles but it deserves a pat on the back. In an era of coalition politics, where national parties have lost ground and have been confined to regional pockets of power, and where regional parties have had a field day at the national level, it is no mean task to complete nine years in power. Riding on the success of schemes like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, the Right to Information Act and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan implemented in its first term, in its second term the UPA continues to keep the momentum. The government has been able to maintain a respectable financial atmosphere at a time when economies around the world are struggling in the red, though a lot more needs to be done to ensure that the economy does not slip any further and improves, like giving a push for industry and opening the economy further. Under the UPA 2 poverty figures have fallen from 37.2% in 2004-05 to 29.8% in 2009-10. By the execution of Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru the government has sent a strong message that it is not a soft power and that there is no compromise on national security. On the foreign policy front it is a mixed bag. New Delhi’s handling of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the Maldives could have been better. However, in its dealing with China and Afghanistan the government has shown great finesse. India has shown great resolve in maintaining political and economic interests with Myanmar, Vietnam and even Japan, while at the same time not straining its ties with China.

There are many things that the UPA could have done differently to avert the negative criticism it is receiving. A bolder and more aggressive prime minister — much like the Manmohan Singh during the Indo-US nuclear deal — would have helped evade much of this criticism. The government seems to have been plagued by allegations of corruption and just when it tides over one scam it is greeted by another. Also a part of the perceived failure of the UPA 2, and an issue the BJP is highlighting as the government’s failure, comes from the government’s inability to pass important Bills such as the food security Bill and the land acquisition Bill. However, if the UPA government has not been able to table the Bills in Parliament it was mainly because opposition parties, headed by the BJP, resorted to frequent disruption of proceedings. The mulish stubbornness of the opposition saw the last two sessions of parliament going virtually without any business done. The principal opposition is the government-in-waiting — a fact the BJP seems to have forgot. While the BJP has been vitriolic on its attack on the PM and has taken great pains to tar the government black, it has failed to suggest measures it would take in the event of the party comes to power in the next general elections.
While the opposition aided by an alert media have been quick to highlight the pitfalls of the government — and they have rightly done so, the government has failed to go to the people with its positive steps it has initiated over the years.