•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student
other

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

Death bringers to the Death Bringer

 

 

 

Our politicians hailed it as a strong message to Pakistan, the Maharashtra Chief  Minister called for an early execution, Special Public Prosecutor Ujwal Nikam gave it the two thumbs up. There were fire crackers in the streets of South Bombay and sweets distrusted in its offices. Hang men are now coming out of retirement, with the hope of getting the ‘opportunity’ to hang Kasab and ofcourse we are now hearing claims from the Government that he will be hanged within the year.

 

The run up to the judgment was a story in itself, the family of the survivors were calling for the death as soon as he was pronounced guilty, while the BJP was busy burning an effigy with a noose around his neck, the Times of India was whipping up excitement with its scrolling updates on its website. And then it finally came, death for the one who brought death.  And with it, the joy, the celebration of many was widely reported. I began to wonder,  is putting someone to death is societies greatest act of retribution. There is a passage in the February 2010 decision of the Supreme Court in Mulla v. State of UP which runs:

 

“When ingratitude is shown instead of gratitude by "killing" a member of the community which protects the murderer himself from being killed, or when the community feels that for the sake of self-preservation the killer has to be killed, the community may well withdraw the protection by sanctioning the death penalty. But the community will not do so in every case. It may do so "in rarest of rare cases" when its collective conscience is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty”

 

 

Though this is a part of a longer, reasoned judgment which may form a part of the jurisprudence which may eventually lead to the abolishment of the death penalty, it is something which sticks out, especially in the light of the reaction portrayed by the media to the news that Kasab was awarded the death sentence. One of the criticisms, of the retributive theory of justice, of which this passage above seems to be referring to, is that its promotes a society which is bloody thirsty and lives on rules of the  a an eye for an eye. And regardless of the other justifications of capital punishment, this seems exactly what is happening. The sheer way in which people of the nation were clamoring for someone’s death was shocking.

 

So where are we then, is law reflecting the sentiment of society or fuelling it? Recent decisions of the Supreme Court indicate that it the rule of law and Constitutionalism may run contrary to public opinion and regardless of public outcry, judges must be insulated and continue to uphold constitutional values. [See: Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009)6SCC498, Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India and Naz Foundation]

 

In Bariar the Supreme Court stated that it was all too aware that death sentencing can become a media spectacle in the country. An understatement in the least considering the spectacle surrounding the Kasab trial. One wonders how one stops attitudes of revenge and thirst for blood from passing from generation to generation.

 

As Michael Moore said, “I refuse to live in a country like this, and I’m not leaving”

 

No comments yet: share your views