QUESTIONS THAT
INTENTIONALLY DEFAME OUR JUDICIARY:
The first question should have been has any President decided
the second appeal in favour of the
condemned person, AFTER rejecting his first appeal after full consideration.
Any statement of anyone, be he might even be a very senior
officer of the government published in a newspaper, cannot be treated as NEW
evidence having a bearing on the case. The defence is supposed to produce all
the evidence to the lower courts or at best to the Supreme Court for their
consideration. If a precedent is set, all such defendants can 'discover' new
evidence one after another and keep on appealing without end!
You can keep on sending appeal after appeal. It does not mean
each appeal has to be reconsidered in
toto. It should be remembered the appeal is only for clemency, not for
reconsideration of points of law, which is decided by courts. The President is
supposed to consider for clemency ONLY the extraneous circumstances not
particularly covered by law which are compulsive enough to merit either pardon
or reduction in sentence. The President is NOT supposed to sit on judgment on
the judgment of the Supreme Court. Therefore once the President has taken a
decision as conveyed to him for approval, after full consideration of the
government, the second appeal is very unlikely to have any valid reason for its
reconsideration and therefore, it does not take even an hour to take to confirm
an earlier decision. Incidentally, the President acts on the advice of the
Prime Minister and once the government takes a decision, the best he could do,
if at all he disapproves of it, is NOT to approve it and send it back.
The President is not a doctor! Such claims of being
schizophrenic should have been submitted to the courts with certificates from
doctors. Even a normal person will likely show mild symptoms of schizophrenia
when faced with gallows! Besides, a doctor certifies before hanging that the
person is healthy enough to be hanged. A mentally deranged or anyone almost on
deathbed or too old, is never hanged.
There is no question of anyone being 'worth' hanging. In
courts of law, especially in India, it is not at all unusual for cases to be
prolonged for decades intentionally by the defence only for the purpose of
asking for clemency at the final stage or even by the prosecution for political
reasons. The intention of the law is to punish the guilty as provided in law and
if the law takes a long time to come to a decision, it alone cannot form the
basis for commuting the sentence to life imprisonment.
Clients act through their lawyers and any submission by the
lawyers is taken to be the submission of the client, who need not sign the
submission. Similarly, any order of the court served on the client's advocate
is accepted as service to the client.
Where do you challenge the decision of the President? In the
Supreme Court? And then if the decision of the Supreme Court is not in your
favour, appeal to the President against it? And keep on this tamasha going?
The accused had spent 21 years in jail and what is sacrosanct
about the two more weeks? Any delay in execution only leads to rising passions
which may lead to unwarranted situations. Besides, it is not for the
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT to extend the date of hanging or even decide about it. It
is for the government to take a decision in the matter. It is immaterial
whether it is two weeks o two days or two months.
There are hangings carried out every day in various parts of
India. Why media is not agitated about them? Why only in this particular case
the media seems to be so agitated? And asking for mercy who even according to
B. Raman had accepted his guilt in the terrorist act. The media has defamed our
Presidency and judiciary by going in a frenzy on this issue.
Comments
Post a Comment