Clemency powers misused?
Is the Indian judiciary misusing its clemency powers in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case? The judiciary displayed a humanitarian
outlook, even after the convict in
the case had death sentence confirmed and mercy petitions rejected. The reason for showing mercy to the convicts
was the unexplained delay on the part of the executive in disposing of mercy
petitions.
The waiting of eleven long years has been an
excruciating and nightmarish experience for the convicts. The verdict has politely
but firmly disapproved the wisdom behind the torturous delay for whatsoever
reasons. This verdict has created a humane atmosphere and has given a boost to
those who advocate abolition of death penalty.
In the past it was found that Race, religion, political
clout of the perpetrators, religions of the victims and the perpetrators,
lobbying, political fallouts from an execution, electoral considerations,
international pressure and a host of other extraneous issues made application
of the death penalty arbitrary and abuse prone. For example, the Hindu right
clamoured for the execution of Afzal Guru; Sikhs petition for sparing the life
of Bhullar; TN politicians have vested interests in the fate of the Rajiv
Gandhi assassins etc. etc.
Since the application of the death penalty in India
is highly arbitrary, having it in the statute books is dangerous and will
inevitably lead to miscarriages of justice. So it is time to drop this barbaric
punishment.
In the context of Rajiv Gandhi assassination case
the Supreme Court of India seems to be expanding in its exercise of
jurisprudence and vision in consistent with the fundamental rights enshrined in
the Constitution. This highlights the process of maturity of political and
social democracy and cementing faith of citizens in the integrated judicial
system with the Right to Review. This is one step ahead in the direction of
more civilized society with no room for savaged and inhuman act 'capital
punishment'. Our enlightened citizens, particularly politicians, ought to take
inordinate delay and isolated imprisonment for the accused on death row into
account to be not less than a corporal punishment. A justice system with a
broad humanitarian outlook irrespective of intensity of offences ensures
justice in more wise and natural way.
One also can’t dismiss the argument that hard core criminals should be executed for the self-defense of the
society at large. Killing in self-defense is not murder. But is this argument
applicable in this case?
No comments:
Post a Comment