SEARCH

Opinion » Comment

Updated: October 18, 2013 01:56 IST

On the verge of unconscionable hangings

Anup Surendranath
Comment (10)   ·   print   ·   T  T  
Illustration: Satwik Gade
The Hindu Illustration: Satwik Gade

After correctly acknowledging the possibility of reformation as a ground to commute the death sentence, the Supreme Court must now consider the case of 22 individuals awaiting execution in the same vein

Three judges of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice of India, have come to the conclusion that Sushil Sharma does not deserve the death penalty for murdering his wife, Naina Sahni, and trying to dispose of her body by burning it in a tandoor. It is no secret that India’s death penalty jurisprudence, at all levels of the judiciary, is in a shambles and the reasoning adopted in Sushil Sharma’s judgment raises very serious concerns about the justice that has been meted out to 22 individuals on the verge of execution after their mercy petitions were rejected by the President (four of them by Pratibha Patil and 18 by Pranab Mukherjee).

While a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the pleas of 18 of the 22 individuals only on the issue of delay caused by the State in deciding their mercy petition, the issue that I want to explore in the context of the Sushil Sharma case is the manner in which they were sentenced to death. In terms of the law, not all murders, terrorist acts, rapes and murders, acts of treason, etc attract the death penalty. The “rarest of the rare” doctrine was introduced in Bachan Singh to lend some coherence to instances in which the death penalty might be justified by balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. However, the “rarest of the rare” doctrine has evolved into one of the most misunderstood and misapplied doctrines not just in public discourse but even in judicial pronouncements from courts at all levels.

The “rarest of the rare” doctrine is often misunderstood as referring only to the heinousness of the crime. The focus is equally meant to be on the mitigating circumstances of the person including whether it has been decidedly shown that she is beyond reformation.

Reasons for commutation

The Court seems to have placed significant weight on the point that the State had not led any evidence to show that Sushil Sharma was beyond reformation. These are very important moves by the Court as it is a clear attempt to move away from multiple judgments in the past where the focus was only on the brutal nature of the crime. This is an important step in the inevitable course correction that the Supreme Court will have to undertake on the manner in which it examines aggravating and mitigating circumstances in death penalty cases.

By taking the position that the State, while demanding the death penalty, should demonstrate that the individual will revert to such crimes, the Court has brought the focus back on the mitigating circumstances and the appropriate burden on the State. It is this aspect of reformation that was articulated in Bachan Singh that has been ignored most often and the obligation is most certainly on the State to show the impossibility of reformation. It is of course not the position in Bachan Singh that any one factor can trump all others and Courts are meant to balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Reformation is an issue that is relevant to all prisoners who appear before the Court irrespective of the nature of the crime, age, sex and social background. If judges want to balance away the interests of reformation in favour of other factors, Courts must be left free to do so. However, there must be an obligation and culture of justification as far as reformation of the death row convict is concerned. As judges seal the fate of the convict, the least they must do is explain the evidence presented before them that led to the conclusion that the convict could not be reformed. If no such evidence is presented before the Court, there must be a presumption of reformation and judges must meet a high threshold of justification if they want to override that presumption. A disingenuous strategy adopted in many judgments confirming the death penalty has been to cite the brutality of the crime as indicative of the impossibility of reformation. To argue that an individual cannot be reformed because of the crime she has committed is a perverse articulation of what was intended in Bachan Singh.

Beyond reformation?

Sushil Sharma has certainly benefited from the substantial weight assigned to reformation as envisaged in Bachan Singh. But the 22 individuals who stand on the verge of execution have not had the benefit of such enquiry into the possibility of their reformation. Apart from highlighting the brutality of the crime, in none of their cases did the State lead any evidence on reformation and unlike in Sushil Sharma’s case, neither did any judge ask the State why it had not presented any such evidence. We must have no illusion that we have brought these 22 individuals extremely close to their death without any court of law in this country having paid adequate attention to the possibility of their reformation.

Double injustice

Almost all of these 22 individuals have spent a very long time in prison and it reflects the lack of humanity in our legal system that we have no mechanism to evaluate the changes they have undergone. The most tragic aspect of death sentences in India is that we often have an image of the prisoner that is frozen in time. It is an image of her when she committed the crime and our moral judgment of the person at that point of time is all that seems to matter. There is no place in our public and legal imagination for the effects of long periods of incarceration. Some of them are the most trusted prisoners in the jails in which they are lodged, some others contribute to the administration of the jail by maintaining records and teaching other prisoners about work they could do in jail, some others have picked up skills and earned degrees while simultaneously having introspected about their time in jail. Of course it is not just about the good things. Incarceration and differing levels of alienation from their families have left many of them extremely mentally vulnerable, displaying signs of severe depression and psychosis. In that sense, these 22 individuals have suffered a double injustice. Neither was the possibility of their reformation explored at the time of sentencing them to death nor is the system interested in evaluating them as individuals as they are today.

It would be unconscionable to hang any of these 22 individuals without considering the issue of reformation meaningfully. Otherwise, it starts to look like there is one standard of justice for people like Sushil Sharma and quite another standard when it comes to Shivu, Jadeswamy, Maganlal, Jafar Ali, Gurmeet Singh, Suresh, Ramji, Perarivalan, Murugan, Santhan, Saibanna, Simon, Madaiah, Gynanaprakasan, Bilavendra, Dharampal, Sonia, Sanjeev, Praveen Kumar, Bhullar, Umesh and Sundar Singh.

(Anup Surendranath is the director of the Death Penalty Research Project at the National Law University, Delhi.)

More In: Comment | Opinion

I always want to ask the supporters of death penalty what is their idea of punishment. Life imprisonment in a small prison cell is punishment. Hanging is not. Death is Freedom.

from:  Aditya G
Posted on: Oct 19, 2013 at 19:49 IST

Mercy should be decided by the victim or Victim's families. As long as we are not affected by heinious crimes of others we will talk endlessly about reformation or beyound reformation and terms like that.

from:  Elavarasu
Posted on: Oct 19, 2013 at 17:39 IST

I support Balaji's point of view.
And in terrorism related offences, the death penalty must be stuck to
for all convicted. No repeals or appeals allowed.

from:  Vijay Sunder
Posted on: Oct 19, 2013 at 12:30 IST

Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise err and cannot see all ends.

J. R. R. TOLKIEN

from:  vyjayanthi
Posted on: Oct 18, 2013 at 18:42 IST

A good many Indians appear to consider only the punitive aspect of judgements. Civilised societies need to look at reformation first and punish only when reformation is not possible. It is for this reason, the death penalty itself is basically flawed from a moral ground because we believe, ab initio, that anyone who commits a heinous crime is beyound reformation. The author did well to point out that people change. Even those who commit serious crimes start realising the implications of their acts and change during their stay in jail. A timely article. Hope people listen.

from:  DR.R.VENKATARAMAN
Posted on: Oct 18, 2013 at 17:16 IST

Anup Surendranath's article on the so-called "unconscionable hangings'' (The Hindu 18th of Oct.'13) is not only one-sided but also tendentious to say the least,for, in the name of a reformative theory of justice, the author advances the most undeserving case of 22 hardcore criminals whom the Apex Court has fittingly awarded the death sentence. Significantly, the President too has quite fittingly dismissed their clemency petitions. The writer is totally oblivious of the reasoning and spirit of the verdict in the Bhullar case in which the Bench quite convincingly ruled that delay can not be a ground for commutation in the case of condemned prisoners convicted in terrorism related cases: Those who have no mercy are not entitled to mercy either.

from:  M.Jameel Ahmed
Posted on: Oct 18, 2013 at 16:45 IST

In my opinion the basis on which the cases are clothed the rarest of
the rare jacket should be changed.The court gives death penalty in
heinous crimes and the court expects that such crime ill not take
place again in the society because the goal of the judiciary system is
to reduce the crime irrespective of the brutality of the crime.But we
have witnessed a rapid increase in the number of heinous crimes
whether it would be Delhi rape case or Sushil Sharma case.Some crimes
like murder and rape cases should be categorized under heinous crimes
and death penalty should be awarded to the accused without considering
the idea of reformation.I know that my thought is very harsh but look
at our Country.It is getting full of uncultured people and so-called
animals.The major victims of the crimes are women and children.so to
reduce crime our judiciary system should expedite the trials so that
the people who are innocent.

from:  Shashi Kumar
Posted on: Oct 18, 2013 at 15:42 IST

The problem I see with death penalty is the fact that a significant majority if not all death row victims are poor, have limited access to good legal aid, are victims of torture, belong to the non-dominant castes, and are in general uneducated. The sentence itself is never uniform and is highly subjective with a strong negative bias towards the downtrodden. A civilized society should focus on creating a level playing field while looking and judging the crime and punishment. It all seems unfair and prejudiced - death sentences should only be given to terrorism related offences.

from:  Balaji
Posted on: Oct 18, 2013 at 12:20 IST

The whole concept of execution is based on the principle of retribution. Its very sad that our system promotes retributive attitude.

from:  Shaurya
Posted on: Oct 18, 2013 at 11:11 IST

The formulation of the 'rarest of rare' was perhaps due to vociferous protests from a small coterie of 'anti-death sentence' activists and similar international organizations. There is no need for such a dictum because it is this ambiguous, subjective and unnecessary rider on the quantum of punishment that is the root cause of problems today. In a vast and emotional country like India, which has faced the biggest and sustained terrorist onslaught for the last three decades, giving the community and the nation a sense of security is the first major task by any government worth its salt. Increasingly, one finds macabre crimes a commonplace occurrence in our country. The ends of justice cannot be met unless stringent punishment is handed down to the criminal after a due process of justice. The criminal jurisprudence is aimed not only at individuals involved in a case but the entire community as well. We should simply do away with the unwanted and confusing 'rarest of rare' nomenclature.

from:  Subramanyam Sridharan
Posted on: Oct 18, 2013 at 09:08 IST
Show all comments
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor
Gujarat, Rajasthan and Punjab: The Need for a Border States Group

The aim of the research report by Tridivesh Singh Maini is to examine the approach of the political leadership, as well as the business community, in three ‘border States’ towards India-Pakistan ties.This paper has sought to look at a number of factors, which include politics, economics as well as security issues.Read Article »

Reporter Alerts

His wife, Aishwarya Dhanush, threw him a surprise birthday party in Chennai last night »

  • facebook Facebook
  • twitter Twitter

Resources

More Resources »

Sunday Magazine

More Sunday Magazine »

Friday Review

More Friday Review »

Habitat

More Habitat »

Young World

More Young World »

O
P
E
N

close

Recent Article in Comment

Biggest ivory market in U.S. after China: experts

Booming global sales of ivory are driving the precipitous and accelerated decline of one of the world’s largest, most revered mammals: th... »