Above politics and passion
It is a sign of the expanding vision of the Indian judiciary that it has reaffirmed the law relating to the correct and constitutional use of sovereign clemency powers without being weighed down by the political and high-profile nature of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. The court has stuck to its humanitarian outlook, placing emphasis on the continued relevance of fundamental rights even after a convict’s death sentence has been confirmed and mercy petitions rejected. Coming less than a month after a three-judge Bench unequivocally laid down that unexplained delay on the part of the executive in disposing of mercy petitions is a supervening circumstance warranting commutation of death sentences to life terms, the Supreme Court’s latest verdict extending that relief to V. Sriharan alias Murugan, T. Suthendraraja alias Santhan and A.G. Perarivalan is least surprising. There was very little scope for it to deviate from its sound and well-reasoned earlier verdicts. It was quite obvious that the passage of 11 long years since their mercy pleas first reached the President would render any move to execute them unconstitutional. The court has also clarified that “life imprisonment means [until the] end of one’s life”, but has noted that the life term would be subject to provisions relating to remission by the appropriate government under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has wisely refrained from any discussion on the roles played by Murugan and Santhan, both committed LTTE members, or Perarivalan, an Indian national.
One unsavoury aspect needs to be taken note of. There was an attempt in Tamil Nadu to give an ethno-linguistic angle to the campaign to save the three convicts from the gallows. The humanitarian demand to abolish capital punishment was overshadowed by efforts to portray the three men as “innocent Tamils”. It is good that the court had laid down a sound jurisprudential foundation for its verdict well before it granted relief to the Rajiv Gandhi case trio, lest someone read in it any unseen influence of emotions whipped up by some political elements. There is bound to be a view that the state’s failure to execute convicted killers and conspirators may mean that justice had not been fully rendered to those killed or maimed in the blast. Rather than looking at it as inadequate justice, an enlightened citizenry should see conviction and imprisonment as sufficient punishment that would give true closure to a dastardly offence, and not execution, which even in the case of the most brutal offences would not be in keeping with the values of a civilised community. Verdicts such as this would create a humane atmosphere and pave the way for the eventual abolition of the death penalty.
New norms on mercy pleas
The clemency procedure under Articles 72 (by the President) and 161 (by Governors) of the Constitution provides a ray of hope to condemned prisoners and their family members for commutation of death sentence into life imprisonment. The executive should step up and exercise its time-honoured tradition of clemency power one-way or the other within a reasonable time, the Supreme Court has held.
Commuting the death sentence of three death row convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan, a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice P. Sathasivam said: “We are confident that the mercy petitions filed under Article 72/161 can be disposed of at a much faster pace than what is adopted now, if the due procedure prescribed by law is followed in verbatim.”
Writing the judgment, the CJI said: “The fact that no time limit is prescribed to the President/Governor for disposal of the mercy petition should compel the government to work in a more systematised manner to repose the confidence of the people in the institution of democracy.
Besides, it is definitely not a pleasure for this Court to interfere in the constitutional power vested under Article 72/161 of the Constitution and, therefore, we implore upon the government to render its advice to the President within a reasonable time so that the President is in a position to arrive at a decision at the earliest.”
The Bench reiterated that exorbitant delay in disposal of mercy petition renders the process of execution of death sentence arbitrary, whimsical and capricious and, therefore, inexecutable.
Furthermore, it said: “Such imprisonment, occasioned by inordinate delay in disposal of mercy petitions, is beyond the sentence accorded by the court and to that extent is extra-legal and excessive. Therefore, the apex constitutional authorities must exercise the power under Article 72/161 within the bounds of constitutional discipline and should dispose of the mercy petitions filed before them in an expeditious manner.”
The Bench said: “Delay makes the process of execution of death sentence unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and thereby, violates procedural due process guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the dehumanising effect is presumed in such cases.
Prolonged delay in execution of death sentence, by itself, gives rise to mental suffering and agony which renders the subsequent execution of death sentence inhuman and barbaric.”
On the argument that the petitioners were under legal obligation to produce evidence of their sufferings and harm caused to them on account of prolonged delay, the Bench said: “It is unknown to law and will be misinterpretation of the ruling in Shatrughan Chauhan judgment. Such a prerequisite would render the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution beyond the reach of death-row convicts and will make them nugatory and inaccessible for all intent and purposes.
Verdict holds out hope for Rajiv case convicts
While commuting the death sentence of three convicts — Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan — in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case into life citing inordinate delay in disposal of their mercy petitions by the President, the Supreme Court rejected the contention of the Centre that the trio did not deserve any mercy as they never showed remorse for killing the former Prime Minister.
A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice P. Sathasivam and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Shiva Kirti Singh also gave a ray of hope for their release, saying that the Tamil Nadu government could exercise its remission powers under Section 432 and 433 Cr.P.C. and following the due procedure in law.
Centre’s stand rejected
The Bench rejected the Centre’s stand that the delay caused was not at the instance of the head of the executive and was not unreasonable.
It said: “Following the rejection of [their] mercy petitions by the Tamil Nadu Governor on April 25, 2000, these petitions were forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs on May 04, 2000. After an unreasonable delay of five years and 1 month, on July 21, 2005, the Ministry of Home Affairs submitted the petitioners’ mercy petitions to the President for consideration.”
Petitions recalled
The court said there was delay even thereafter. In February 2011, the MHA recalled the mercy petitions from the President. “Here also there was a delay of five years and eight months. Ultimately, the President, on September 12, 2011, rejected these mercy petitions after a delay of more than 11 years,” the Bench said.
It said it was indisputable that the delay was “inordinate and unreasonable and not caused at the instance of the petitioners,” warranting commutation of their death sentence life imprisonment.
The politics of remission
Commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment could be seen as an act of compassion, but a straight leap from capital punishment to wholesale release as has been proposed by the Tamil Nadu government in the case of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts raises the question whether the very object of penal laws is being subverted. If the assassins of a former Prime Minister, who had been sentenced to death, are allowed to walk free on political considerations and on the basis of regional and linguistic passions, public faith in the criminal justice system is bound to erode. The Supreme Court, while commuting the death sentence on three of them, had said the life term was subject to remission by the appropriate government following procedures set down in Section 432 of the CrPC. The haste with which the Tamil Nadu government decided on the release of the seven convicts, overlooking procedural and substantive requirements, was questioned in the Supreme Court, which stayed it. The power of remission, the court had held on an earlier occasion, cannot be exercised arbitrarily but has to be “well informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned”. In addition, the State has to obtain the opinion of the court that awarded or confirmed the sentence, and in any case remission cannot be wholesale but has to be considered on a case by case basis. It is debatable if justice would require the convicts to remain in prison until the end of their natural life or if the 23 years that they have spent in prison is enough of a punishment. Again, while the law requires consultation with the Centre at the very least, the State has announced its decision and is then going through the motions of consulting the Centre. Setting a three-day deadline for the Centre to convey its view is not merely unreasonable but also goes against norms of interaction in a federal polity. With the Supreme Court restraining it from altering the status quo, the State’s action will no doubt be subject to deeper legal scrutiny.
A decision on the convicts is bound to have repercussions for India’s foreign and internal security policies, and for States hit by militancy. Arbitrary decisions to release life convicts found guilty of a political assassination may also have another consequence: the erosion of public support for the abolition of capital punishment, as society may tend to view life terms cynically, as an oblique means of releasing convicts after some years. In dealing with those found guilty of killing a former Prime Minister in collaboration with a foreign terror outfit, the judiciary has shown it can stay above political considerations, and displayed a humanistic spirit. Even convicted killers may some day deserve freedom. Any decision to set them free calls for careful consideration; a decision based on regional passions carries with it the danger of creating an emotional disconnect between Tamil Nadu and the rest of India.
Decision to release Rajiv case convicts may impact electoral calculations of Congress, BJP
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa’s decision to release convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination casehas gained traction in Tamil Nadu, but will have political repercussions for both the Congress and the BJP.
One, it has put paid to the possibility of the Congress being able to persuade theDMK and, indeed, even the Vijaykanth-led DMDK, to join hands with it for the Lok Sabha election. Not only has the Centre moved the Supreme Court opposing the decision, the Congress has publicly castigated the Tamil Nadu government for the move.
Two, while some of the BJP’s national leaders have criticised the T.N. government’s action, the party’s prime ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi, has so far been silent on the issue. The AIADMK may have been disinclined to have a pre-election arrangement with the BJP, but there were indications that in a post-poll situation, it may back a Modi-headed, BJP-led government at the Centre. Now, that could be in jeopardy unless the BJP treads a fine line, said party sources.
On Thursday, senior DMK MPs The Hindu spoke to categorically said there was no question of any electoral arrangement with the Congress now, even as they stressed that Ms. Jayalalithaa’s decision was absolutely correct. Curiously, they were of the view that since there was to be no pre-poll AIADMK-BJP arrangement, and the general election was some time away, AIADMK’s support for a BJP-led government could not be ruled out.
AIADMK MPs, on their part, refused to comment on the political fallout of the move, only stressing that the decision was taken as it was the right thing to do, and not because of any political calculations.
The Congress, taking its cue from party vice-president Rahul Gandhi’s unhappiness with the Tamil Nadu government’s decision, criticised the move. A host of senior leaders, including MPs Mani Shankar Aiyar, Hanumanth Rao and Renuka Chowdhury , and Union Ministers Anand Sharma, Krishna Tirath , Manish Tewari and Rajiv Shukla, described the decision as being politically motivated and taken with an eye on the general election.
At the party’s official briefing, Congress spokesperson Shashi Tharoor, dismissing suggestions that the Congress was isolated in Tamil Nadu over the issue, said: “We do not play politics with terrorism. We do not give any quarter to it. Acts of terror directed at Indian citizens must be firmly resisted. We do not see any difference in one kind of terrorism from another.”
Union Law Minister Kapil Sibal, on his part, took a potshot at the BJP for practising “double standards” on terror: “I want to ask a specific question to Narendra Modi: why are you quiet on this? It’s not just a wrong signal on your behalf. It also sends a wrong signal on behalf of your party.
While Mr. Modi remained silent, his party colleague and Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley chose to criticise the AIADMK government’s action in a blog post titled ‘Misconceived compassion’. “After assassinating a former Prime Minister of the country how there can be institutional compassion for such persons is difficult to comprehend.”
On Wednesday, BJP’s deputy leader in the Rajya Sabha Ravi Shankar Prasad had said: “This talk of compassion for the killers of Rajiv Gandhi is a matter of concern for BJP because in this whole exercise, a very serious crime of the cruel assassination of a former Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi is being ignored altogether.”
Later, when asked whether this criticism would affect the party’s bonhomie with the AIADMK, a senior BJP leader told The Hindu : “Ours is a mature relationship.”
Supreme Court stays release of Rajiv case convicts
The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Tamil Nadu government not to release till March 6, 2014 three convicts whose death sentence was commuted by it to life term on Tuesday in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
Though the State government decided to free seven convicts in the case, the court order is restricted to Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan as the Centre’s application is for restraining the State government from releasing them. Indications are that the Centre will file an application on Friday to stop the release of Nalini, Robert Payas, Jayakumar and Ravichandran.
The Bench, after hearing Solicitor-General Mohan Parasaran and senior counsel Rakesh Diwedi for the Tamil Nadu government, who pleaded with the court not to pass any stay order, issued notice to the State, Inspector-General of Prisons, Chennai, and Superintendent of the Central Prison, Vellore, besides the three convicts. The Centre and the State were directed to maintain status quo.
Mr. Parasaran told the court that only the Centre could grant remission, and the Tamil Nadu government had not followed procedure.
Chief Justice of India P. Sathasivam observed, “When death is converted to life and remission is granted, authorities have to give special reasons. Our judgment was available at 5 p.m. on the Net on Tuesday. But the Tamil Nadu government took the decision on Wednesday morning. We are not expressing any views. We are not underestimating the powers of the State. We are concerned with the procedural lapses and we will examine it.”
In its February 18 judgment, the court said, “Life imprisonment means end of one’s life, subject to any remission granted by the appropriate government under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which, in turn, is subject to procedural checks.” The Centre said it should be examined whether the Centre or the State was the right government to grant remission.
The barbarity of the death penalty
Three convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, who have spent 23 years in jail, about half that period on death-row, have had their death sentence commuted by the Supreme Court on the ground of delay caused in the disposal of their mercy petitions. This marks a point where India has touched its cultural Everest.
The Indian Constitution has in a sacred provision bestowed upon every citizen the right to life. Life is God’s greatest gift to humankind, and no man or woman should be robbed of it by another human being under any circumstance. This constitutional boon is perhaps the highest blessing that the citizens of Bharat secured from the paramount deed in Article 14 of India’s suprema lex , its Constitution.
This sublime and sacred article of the Constitution is nullified and desecrated by the power, included in the Penal Code that the British rulers left behind, conferring on the judiciary the power to impose the death penalty as a judicial punishment for committing the offence of murder. It is a plain contradiction of the right to life conferred by the state if the same state can impose or can exercise the right to kill, whatever the cause may be. India is perhaps the most celebrated nation in the civilised world with its Vedic glory and ancient culture, a land that is proud of a range of icons from the Buddha to Mahatma Gandhi.
British imperialism imposed upon its colony, India, the sentencing barbarity of capital punishment. Lord Mountbatten was treacherously killed and the British judiciary imposed the death sentence on the killer but the cultural reforms of Westminster abolished the death sentence. That murderer is still alive.
In the United States, many states still do not have the death penalty. The majority of the world’s civilised nations have already abolished the death penalty, and the United Nations is actively considering the elimination of capital punishment from global criminal jurisprudence altogether.
It will therefore be a glorious gesture and a cultural tribute to Article 14 if right now all the political parties of India, acting in unison, decide to abolish the gallows and pay a tribute to Gandhiji by depriving judicial power or state authority to impose the death sentence for any crime. The legislative abolition of the death penalty through a simple, single-sentence resolution by Parliament will be a statutory tribute to the Founding Fathers of Article 14.
Imposing life imprisonment for committing the crime of murder is also horrendous, but at least it does not rob the God-given gift of life. Life ever and death never, that is the spiritual quintessence of all religions which have entered the sacred land of India.
The illumination of a civilisation arrives only when a people come to terms with the end of life and intimate integration with what we call death in the absence of another world. Death is not the end of life but the beginning of a new chapter of existence.
The truth of life and the myth of mortality is contained in a quotation from Tagore’s Gitanjali:
I know that the day will come when my sight of this earth shall be lost,
and life will take its leave in silence, drawing the last curtain over my eyes.
Yet stars will watch at night, and morning rise as before, and hours
heave like sea waves casting up pleasures and pains.
When I think of this end of my moments, the barrier of the moments
breaks and I see by the light of death thy world with its careless treasures.
Rare is its lowliest seat, rare is its meanest of lives.
Things that I longed for in vain and things that I got — let them pass.
Let me but truly possess the things that I ever spurned and overlooked.
Centre to file plea against TN govt move to remit sentences
A day after the Supreme Court declined to stay the release of four out of seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, the central government Friday decided to file a substantive petition, challenging the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to remit the sentences of all seven.
The decision, according to the sources, was taken since the court’s stay order was confined only to three convicts, who were petitioners before the apex court, and hence there was nothing to restrain the Jayalalithaa government from taking further steps regarding the other four.
Solicitor General Mohan Parasran had on Thursday pleaded a Bench led by Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam to also stay the release of these four convicts but the Bench had turned down his request, necessitating the government to file a comprehensive writ petition.
The petition, as per the sources, will be a writ petition, set to challenge the Tamil Nadu government’s resolution to remit the remaining jail terms of all the seven convicts and the communication sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs for consultation.
The Centre is going to argue that the “appropriate government”, as stipulated under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), was the central government and hence it solely had the power of remission of sentence.
Moreover, the convicts were held guilty under various central laws like the Arms Act, the Explosive Substances Act, the Passport Act, etc, and hence the power of Union extended to all matters relating to conviction under these laws, as per the government.
It is also going to contend that the law made it clear that prior consultation with the central government was necessary in any case which was investigated by the CBI, set up under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. The CBI had investigated the assassination case.
It is learnt that the petition will be filed on Monday.
The government on Thursday filed a review petition against the court’s decision of commuting the death sentence of Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan. It claimed that the court order was “patently illegal” and filed without any jurisdiction.
In its review petition, the Centre has said the apex court passed the order “without jurisdiction” since it had limited powers to interference with the merits of the order of the rejection of mercy plea by the President.
The government contended that if the SC thought there was no proper consideration of the mercy petition, the matter had to be remitted back to the President for a reconsideration, requesting for an expeditious disposal of the petitions. It maintained that the President was not required to give any reasons for delay.
MHA to TN: Remission cannot be done in ‘wholesale manner’
Following Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa’s decision to release all seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has sent another letter to the state government detailing the legal and constitutional provisions to show the state government had no power to remit the life sentences on its own, as convicts are required to make individual appeals, a senior government official has said.
In the letter, the Centre has said remission “can be given only on a case-by-case basis and not in a wholesale manner”.
To support its stand, the Centre reminded the state government about an advisory circulated by it last year, which made it binding on all state governments to consult the Centre when it wanted to remit the sentences of prisoners imprisoned to life and involved in cases under the central Act. The letter also mentioned the Supreme Court judgement in the Sangeet versus state of Haryana case in 2012, where the death sentence of two killers was commuted to life imprisonment.
“Last year, we had issued an advisory where we asked the state governments to follow certain procedures when it came to such cases. We have also asked the Tamil Nadu government whether they have followed the provisions mentioned in the advisory or not. Our main thrust area are sections 432, 433 and 433 A of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bars the state from taking any such move,” said a senior MHA official.
To press its point, MHA mentioned a 2012 judgement by an SC Bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, which states, “Remission can be granted under Section 432 of the CrPC in the case of a definite term of sentence. The power under this Section is available only for granting “additional” remission, that is, for a period over and above the remission granted or awarded to a convict under the jail manual or other statutory rules. If the term of sentence is indefinite (as in life imprisonment), the power under Section 432 of the CrPC can certainly be exercised but not on the basis that life imprisonment is an arbitrary or notional figure of twenty years of imprisonment. Before actually exercising the power of remission under Section 432 of the CrPC, the appropriate government must obtain the opinion (with reasons) of the presiding judge of the convicting or confirming court. Remissions can, therefore, be given only on a case-by-case basis and not in a wholesale manner.”
Politicking on capital punishment
None of the parties that endorsed the move to release the seven convicts has come out on the larger controversy over the abolition of capital punishment in India
Under very different circumstances, the European Court of Human Rights 2013 verdict — that whole-life sentences without review and the prospect of release amounted to cruel and degrading punishment — might have been cited enthusiastically in support of the Tamil Nadu government’s bid to release the seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. But it is hard to attribute noble motives of respect for human rights standards in a case where the remission of a life sentence was announced within hours of the commutation of the death sentence against three of them. On the contrary, such a hurried move raises a legitimate concern that the potential implications of the step for other cases may not have been factored into this politically calculated decision.
None of the parties that initiated or endorsed the move to secure the release of the seven convicts has categorically come out on the larger controversy over the abolition of capital punishment in India. At the very least, such an intervention in that more fundamental debate in all these 16 years might have pushed the country towards the establishment of a moratorium on executions. That would have earned a reprieve for scores of convicts who languish in jails around the country and not just these seven who have been incarcerated for 23 long years and, three of them spending 16 years on death row. But a reference to respect for the sentiments of the Tamils and the views of political leaders is all that is contained in the 2011 Tamil Nadu Assembly resolution seeking the commutation of the death sentences against Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan.
Marginalised issue
The larger question of the resort to capital punishment is but a part of the continuing saga of competitive (and at times communal) politics that vitiates the debate over resolving the vexed issue of extraordinary delays in the disposal of mercy petitions. Unsurprisingly, but ironically, the question of the abolition of capital punishment from the statute has remained at best marginal, even as the appeal from various political parties for clemency for the death row population has invoked principles of humane and humanitarian law.
To be sure, selective appeals for the commutation of death sentences do bring reprieve for individual convicts. But when orchestrated with an eye on partisan political ends, questions of a fundamental nature, namely the arbitrariness and the retributive character of this barbaric punishment are seldom addressed. Similarly, the inconsistency between the state’s power to take an individual’s life — a defining aspect of capital punishment — and the inviolability of the constitutionally-ordained right of every person to his life, are entirely irrelevant to pleas from political parties to secure reprieve for particular convicts. In contrast are the clemency petitions pursued by civil rights organisations such as the People’s Union for Civil Liberties. Pleas from a human rights standpoint typically foreground the extenuating circumstances of the convict, an area the Supreme Court has elaborated and steadily expanded over the decades, besides invoking the broader objectives of criminal jurisprudence mentioned above.
Last year’s 16 to 1 ruling of the Strasbourg court returned to the spotlight last week when the U.K. Court of Appeals upheld whole-life sentences. The details of that decision need not detain us here. Of relevance to the current debate in India is the European court’s emphasis that the possibility of a review of a life sentence did not imply the prospect of imminent release. Whether or not they should be released would depend on whether there were still legitimate penological grounds for their continued detention and whether they should continue to be detained on grounds of dangerousness.
Given that many terrorism-related offences in India, often high-profile cases, attract the ultimate punishment, the field is wide open for competitive pressures and populist posturing in the various stages leading upto the pronouncement of a verdict of guilt. The abolition of the death penalty by law may contribute substantially to rid the domain of criminal justice administration of such extrajudicial influences. Only thus could the focus shift onto the real issues of respect for the rights of detainees, securing time-bound convictions and delivering speedy justice.
Centre to decide on Bhullar’s fresh mercy plea in two weeks
The Centre will communicate to President Pranab Mukherjee in two weeks its decision on the fresh mercy petition of Navneet Kaur, wife of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, seeking commutation of his death sentence to life term on medical grounds.
Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati made this submission before a four-member Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday at a hearing of her curative petition.
Ms. Kaur cited the court’s January 21 judgment which held that inordinate delay in disposal of mercy petitions by the government could be a ground for commutation of the death sentence and granted life term to 15 condemned prisoners, including four aides of the forest brigand Veerappan.Mr. Vahanvati said a two-judge Bench upheld Bhullar’s death penalty on April 12, 2013, and the very next day, his wife sent a mercy petition to the President. This fact was not disclosed in the curative petition. In his present medical condition, he said, Bhullar could not be executed. Without going into the technicalities of the curative petition, the matter should be left to the President to decide on the mercy petition rather than the court deciding on its merits.
In light of custody conduct, SC commutes death sentence
Life imprisonment is the rule and the death penalty an exception. The death sentence must be imposed only in the gravest cases of extreme culpability, namely in the “rarest of rare” where the option of life imprisonment is “unquestionably foreclosed,” the Supreme Court reiterated on Thursday.
It commuted the death sentence awarded to four convicts for killing nine persons.
A Bench of Chief Justice P. Sathasivam and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Shiva Kirti Singh said: “There is no manner of doubt that the appellants — Santosh Manohar Chavan, Amit Ashok Shinde, Yogesh Madhukar Chavan and Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde — have committed the murder of as many as nine innocent and unsuspecting victims who were led to believe that Shinde had magical powers to multiply money.”
Writing the judgment, Justice Gogoi said: “The deceased, after being killed, were robbed of the cash amounts they had brought with them for a ‘money shower’.”
The criminal acts of the accused were actuated by a greed for money and were the result of a carefully planned scheme. The crimes were committed over nearly two months in three different episodes. The assaults on some of the victims were merciless and gruesome. Some of the victims were young and hapless children.
At the same time, the Bench said, “all the four accused were young at the time of commission of the offence, 23-29 years. They belong to the economically, socially and educationally deprived section. They were living in acute poverty. It is possible that, being young, they had a yearning for quick money and it is these circumstances that led to the commission of the crimes. Materials have been laid before this court to show that while in custody, all the accused enrolled themselves in Yashahantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University and either completed the B.A. examination or are on the verge of acquiring the degree. At least three of the appellants have, at different points of time, participated in different programmes of Gandhian thoughts and have been awarded certificates. In prison, A-2 has written a book titled Resheemganth and A-3 has been associated with the work.”
Taking into consideration the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the Bench commuted the death sentence, awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the Bombay High Court, to imprisonment for the rest of their lives subject to remissions, if any, “which will be strictly subject to the provisions of Sections 432 and 433-A of the Cr.PC.”
‘President’s decision on mercy plea beyond review’
The Centre on Saturday assailed the January 21 Supreme Court verdict commuting the death sentence of 15 convicts to life term, saying the President’s decision in disposing of a mercy petition was beyond judicial review.
In its review petition, the Home Ministry said keeping a death-row convict in suspense or delay in consideration of his mercy petition by itself could not be a sufficient ground for commuting the death sentence. Citing the January 21 judgment, a Bench on February 18 commuted to life sentence the death penalty for Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, on which review was already filed.
In the present case, the issue raised was commutation of the death sentence on the ground of delay, which, it was claimed, attracted Article 21 in favour of the convicts. Therefore, it involved a substantial issue of interpretation of the Constitution and ought to have been heard by a Bench of five judges, as mandated under Article 145, the Centre said. Further, “the interference of this court with the merits of the order of rejection issued by the President is without jurisdiction.”
Reconsideration
If this court thought that there was no proper consideration of the mercy petition, it ought to be remitted back to the President for reconsideration.
Alternatively, if the issue raised was delay, as in the present case, the court ought to have referred the matter to the President requesting expeditious disposal.
No merits in plea against commutation: apex court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to review its January 21 verdict, commuting the death sentence of 15 convicts to life term because of inordinate delay on the part of the President in disposing of their mercy petitions.
A Bench of Chief Justice P. Sathasivam and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Shiva Kittu Singh dismissed the Centre’s petition in the CJI’s chamber, observing it had no merits.
In its petition, the Home Ministry had said keeping a death-row convict in suspense even as the President considered his mercy petition by itself could not be a sufficient ground for commuting the death sentence.
Citing its January 21 judgment, the court on February 18 commuted the sentence of the three death-row convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. A petition for a review of this ruling has already been filed.
The Centre said: “The interference of this court with the merits of the order of rejection issued by the President is without jurisdiction. Once the President had, in exercise of his power under Article 72, rejected the mercy petition, this court has only a limited power, under judicial review, to disturb the order of the President.”
The Centre said: “If this court was of the opinion that there had not been a proper consideration of the mercy petition, the same ought to be remitted back to the President for reconsideration. Alternatively, if the issue raised was delay, as in the present case, this court ought to have referred the matter to the President requesting expeditious disposal of the petition.”
Centre said court had only limited power to disturb the order of the President
Constitution Bench to hear Rajiv convicts release case
In a major setback to Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court on Friday extended the stay on the State government’s order, directing the release of seven life convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
A Bench of Chief Justice P. Sathasivam and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and N.V. Ramana said the petition filed by the Centre, challenging the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to remit the sentences, will be referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench. On February 20, the court had directed the Tamil Nadu government to maintain status quo in its decision to release Sriharan alias Murugan, T. Suthendraraja alias Santhan and A.G. Perarivalan alias Arivu. The apex court had also stayed the release of Nalini, Robert Pius, Jayakumar and Ravichandran.
No comments:
Post a Comment