Death Row Inmates: Scaling Down Sentences (India)

December 16, 2018

Recent court judgments have tended to take a more humane view of not just the issue of capital punishment but even issues relating to convicts waiting on death row

By Vipin Pubby in Chandigarh

Among the last judgments that Justice Kurien Joseph delivered before his retirement last month was one that commuted the death sentence of a murder accused to life imprisonment. In a minority judgment delivered on November 28, Justice Joseph noted that it was high time the imposition of death as a punishment, however heinous the crime, be reviewed. The two other judges on the bench agreed with him in commuting the sentence to life imprisonment, but differed on the issue of the constitutionality of capital punishment.

Public opinion in the country on the abolition of the death penalty remains sharply divided but some recent judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts have tended to take a more humane view of not just the issue of capital punishment but even issues relating to convicts on death row. Courts are increasingly attempting to usher in reforms and are prodding the government to review some archaic laws dating back to the British era.

The Punjab Jail Manual, for instance, specifies that “every prisoner condemned to death is to be confined in a cell apart from all other prisoners, and is to be placed by day and by night under the charge of a special guard. No person can communicate with him without the authority of the Superintendent. The prisoner condemned to death is only permitted to occupy the courtyard of his cell for half an hour each morning and evening”. Taking cognisance of the provision, a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier this month abolished the practice of keeping death row inmates in solitary confinement in Haryana jails. The High Court said that the rule was without authority of law and amounted to additional punishment. In its order, the Court called the provision “anarchic, cruel and insensitive”, reflective of “a colonial mindset”, and violative of Articles 20 (2) and 21 of the Constitution.

In a 111-page judgment, the Court said the practice “amounts to torture and is violative of a person’s basic human rights”. The bench comprising Justices Rajiv Sharma and Gurvinder Singh Gill also said the “convict shall not be segregated/isolated till the sentence of death has become final, conclusive and indefeasible which cannot be annulled or voided by any judicial process. The period to keep a convict sentenced to death in segregation/isolation should be for the shortest possible time, i.e. 2-3 days”. The order came as part of a judgment commuting the death sentence of three persons convicted by a Mahendergarh court for the rape and murder of a nine-year-old in 2014 to a mandatory 20-year term without remissions.

The court order for “abolishing” the rule is specific to the “practice” adopted by jail authorities in Haryana. However, the bench did not pass any order to remove the provision from the Punjab Jail Manual, which has been adopted by Haryana. Removal of the provision will require the Punjab government to make amendments to the Jail Manual, or the court, acting on a legal challenge, to quash the provision. The division bench passed the verdict in response to appeals filed by three convicts against the death sentence awarded to them and the murder reference sent by the trial court for confirmation by the High Court. The advocates representing them also pointed out that the convicts had been sent to solitary confinement immediately after being sentenced to death.

Last month, Justice Joseph along with Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud took up for review a case concerning capital punishment. The review petition related to a case wherein the special leave petition filed against the imposition of capital punishment was dismissed in limine by a bench of the Supreme Court in 2006. The bench had dismissed the case without hearing it. Under the norm, the court need not give any justification for not hearing a case as it is assumed that it has made up its mind before the start of hearings. The three-judge bench deciding to reopen and review the earlier decision of the Court in such a case was perhaps unprecedented. Earlier in 2014, a Supreme Court bench of then Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam and Justices RM Lodha, HL Dattu and Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, had commuted the death penalty of 1993 Delhi bomb blast convict Devender Pal Singh Bhullar to life imprisonment.

Justice Kurian Joseph

The bench said that because of the “unexplained/inordinate delay” of eight years in disposing of his mercy petition and on the ground of Bhullar’s “insanity”, it was allowing the curative peti­tion to commute his death sentence to life in prison. Bhullar was suffering from severe depression with psychotic features, as per medical reports. Significantly, Justice Sathasivam had also presided over the bench in the Shatrughan Chauhan case in January 2014, and the commutation of the death penalty for Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins earlier that year. In the former case, while commuting the death sentence imposed on the petitioners to imprisonment for life, the Supreme Court had validated the established principle that “unexplained/ unreasonable/inordinate delay in disposal of mercy petition is one of the supervening circumstances for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment”. The Supreme Court had further observed that “insanity/mental illness/schizophrenia is also one of the supervening circumstances for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment”. Citing that judgment in the Bhullar case, the Supreme Court had said: “We deem it fit to commute the death sentence imposed on Devender Pal Singh Bhullar to life imprisonment both on the ground of unexplained/inordinate delay of 8 years in disposal of mercy petition and on the ground of insanity of the accused.”

Source: http://www.indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/supreme-court-news/death-row-inmates-scaling-down-sentences-58464 (Accessed 25 December 2018)

Prof Davinderpal Singh Bhullar Released On 42 Day’s Parole (Punjab)

By Sikh24 Editors - 

September 24, 2017

AMRITSAR SAHIB, Punjab—Political Sikh prisoner, Prof. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar has been released today on parole for 42 days, from the Central Jail of Amritsar. He has reached the home of his wife, Bibi Navneet Kaur, situated in Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. Prof. Bhullar was transferred to Central Jail of Amritsar in May of 2015, due to public pressure built up against Indian government by Bapu Surat Singh Khalsa’s campaign. He is serving life sentence after being sentenced for orchestrating a deadly attack on Maninderjeet Bitta in 1993, who was President of Indian Youth Congress at that time.

File Photo: Prof. Bhullar (on right) with Bhai Ravinder Jeet Singh Gogi

After his transfer to Punjab, Prof. Bhullar has been granted parole several times. Prof. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar was framed under the Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) in a case of killing nine bystanders in a 1993 car bombing intended to kill Maninderjeet Bitta (Youth Congress leader), and was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of India had commuted his death sentence to life Imprisonment on 31 March 2014, both on the ground of an unexplained and inordinate delay of eight years in deciding his mercy petition and on the grounds of him suffering from schizophrenia.

Source: https://www.sikh24.com/2017/09/24/prof-davinderpal-singh-bhullar-released-on-42-days-parole/#.XB_Rx1VKjIU (Accessed 23 December 2018)

Source: http://sikhsiyasat.net/2015/06/12/wife-meets-prof-bhullar-in-guru-nanak-hospital-amritsar/ [last accessed on 03.07.2015]

The politics of executions in India

By Bobby Naqvi | Special to Gulf NewsPublished: 17:19 February 24, 2014

 Indian Muslims and people of Guru’s home state of Jammu and Kashmir have accused the Congress government of playing dirty politics by fast-tracking his execution. This allegation has some substance.

 “The 23 years of life in a prison and that too on death row and the solitary isolation has almost snatched everything from us and all we have is life in our body and hope in our heart. Please release my father and get him back to me, you’ll be hailed as saviours.” Priyanka Harithra,Daughter of Nalini and Murugan

 “Guru was killed by the Congress for political gains. They sacrificed him for votes. If after so many years, their sentence could be commuted, what was the hurry in killing him?” Tabassum, Widow of Afzal Guru.

These two statements are a telling commentary on how Indian politicians and governments adopt double standards while dealing with Muslim and non-Muslims sentenced to death by a court of law. The first is from a mercy petition written by Priyanka Harithra, the 22-year-old UK-based daughter of Nalini and Murugan who were awarded death penalty in 1999 for assassinating former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991. The mercy petition this week was addressed to Rajiv’s widow Sonia and son Rahul after Supreme Court commuted Murugan’s death sentence over a technicality. Nalini’s death sentence was commuted after she was pardoned by Rajiv’s family members on humanitarian grounds. Harithra pleaded with Sonia and Rahul to release her parents.

Harithra’s mercy plea came after Supreme Court on February 18 commuted death sentence of Rajiv’s killers, including Murugan. While commuting the death sentence, the court cited federal government’s delay in dealing with all the four convicts’ mercy petitions. Soon after this verdict, a regional politician and chief minister of Tamil Nadu, J. Jayalalitha announced her government will release the four convicts, all from Tamil Nadu. Her decision, months before general elections, is seen as an attempt to gain support of Tamil nationalists who sympathise with the assassins and blame Rajiv for sending Indian army troops to crush the Tamil rebellion in Sri Lanka.

The second statement is of the widow of a Muslim, Afzal Guru, who was hanged for his role in the December 2001 Parliament attack. After the court commuted Murugan’s death sentence, Guru’s widow Tabassum questioned why her husband was hanged when Rajiv’s killers who were sentenced way back in 1999 have now been pardoned. Guru was sentenced to death in 2003 and the verdict was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005. In a secret operation on February 9, 2013, the Congress-led UPA government executed Guru and buried him inside Tihar jail where he was lodged since his arrest. The hanging came as a surprise because Guru was 25th on the list of death convicts and the government deals with mercy petitions from death convicts in a chronological order. Clearly, 43-year-old Guru was treated as a special case for some inexplicable reasons and his hanging and burial was shrouded in secrecy. Moreover, the government failed to inform the family members, Guru’s widow Tabassum received a letter about the hanging two days after TV channels broke the news. Tabassum, who has a 13-year-old son, was also not informed about the rejection of her mercy petition. One year on, Tabassum is still pleading for her husband’s body and belongings.

Impressing Hindu nationalists

Indian Muslims and people of Guru’s home state of Jammu and Kashmir have accused the Congress government of playing dirty politics by fast-tracking Guru’s execution. The hanging, they feel, was an attempt to impress Hindu nationalists and a crude attempt to check the rising graph of right-wing opposition Bharatiya Janata Party which had been demanding swift execution of Guru. This allegation has some substance.

To get a sense of this complex game of politics of death practiced by governments and politicians, it is necessary to go into the background of Guru’s sentencing. Throughout his trial, Guru maintained his innocence and denied he had any role in attacking Parliament in which a dozen people were killed. The Supreme Court, in a controversial, order rejected Guru’s appeal and upheld the death sentence. The order, considered controversial by Muslims and human rights activists, makes an interesting read: “Thus the conspirator, even though he may not have indulged in the actual criminal operations to execute the conspiracy, becomes liable for the punishment… The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender.”

Thus, the Supreme Court, while admitting there was no direct evidence to convict Guru, went ahead to uphold his death sentence in order to “satisfy the collective conscience of the society”. Guru’s trial in lower court also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was indeed involved in the conspiracy to attack parliament. Here is a paragraph from an article written by human rights activist and celebrated author Arundhati Roy a day after Guru was hanged: “The trial in the fast-track court began in May 2002. The world was still convulsed by post 9/11 frenzy. The US government was gloating prematurely over its “victory” in Afghanistan. In the state of Gujarat, the massacre of Muslims by Hindu goon squads, helped along by the police and the state government machinery that had begun in late February, was still going on sporadically. The air was charged with communal hatred. And in the parliament attack case the law was taking its own course. At the most crucial stage of a criminal case, when evidence is presented, when witnesses are cross-examined, when the foundations of the argument are laid, Afzal Guru, locked in a high-security solitary cell, had no lawyer. The court-appointed junior lawyer did not visit his client even once in jail, he did not summon any witnesses in Guru’s defence, and he did not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The judge expressed his inability to do anything about the situation.” Like his hanging, the trial was also swift and fast-tracked.

In contrast, Murugan, his wife and two others — all Hindu Tamils — were sentenced to death for killing Rajiv and 14 others in a suicide bombing. Successive governments never showed any haste in deciding on their mercy pleas. This week, 15 years after they were convicted, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence blaming the government for delay in deciding mercy petitions. In another case, Sikh terrorist Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar was sentenced to death for carrying out a bomb blast in 1993, killing nine. The government rejected his mercy petition in 2011 but is yet to execute him, possibly to avoid a backlash from the Sikh community.

One can speculate that the government dragged its feet on politically sensitive cases of Rajiv killers because the assassins enjoyed sympathy of Tamil Hindus. Guru’s case was handled with ruthless swiftness because he came from Kashmir, a state in conflict with Indian troops. More significantly, hanging of a Muslim terrorist brought cheers from Hindu nationalists and right-wing politicians. After all, the Supreme Court condemned Guru to die in order to satisfy the nation’s conscience and the government could not have denied Indian people a moment of national glory.

Source: http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/the-politics-of-executions-in-india-1.1295186 [accessed 24 April 2014]

Derby cousin’s tears of joy as professor is off Death Row after 19 years

By Derby Telegraph | Posted: April 16, 2014

By Joey Severn

THE cousin of a man who has been on Death Row for more than 19 years has spoken of her delight that his sentence has been commuted. Kamalpreet Kaur, of Littleover, has not seen her cousin, Professor Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, since he was sentenced to death in India. The family, along with members of the Sikh community in Derby and across the world, joined together to lobby for his release. And that dream has taken a step closer to becoming a reality after he was finally released from Death Row. Mrs Kaur said: “I first received a call from India and later I spoke to his wife. “I was very happy when I heard. I was crying because it was so emotional. “We are hoping that he will be free soon and that we will be able to see him again. “I last saw him in 1991.

He has been imprisoned and later on Death Row for more than 19 and a half years; his mental and physical health has been seriously affected.” Mrs Kaur, who travelled from the Punjab to live in Derby in 2001, believes that her cousin has been wrongly imprisoned for a crime that he did not commit. Derby campaigner Bhajan Singh Dheansay said that Professor Bhullar’s father, uncle and best friend were murdered in 1991. He said: “Those people were murdered by the state in the Punjab because the professor was a lecturer and 42 of his students went on a demonstration and never came back. “The professor started asking questions about the system and, because of this, his father, brother and best friend were murdered.” Professor Bhullar was then accused of detonating a car bomb in Delhi in 1993 in an attack on a politician. The professor fled to Germany in an attempt to gain political asylum but was deported back to India.

At his trial he was found guilty and sentenced to death. He has spent more than 19 years not knowing if he would see the next day and, despite various appeals, his suffering has meant he was placed in a psychiatric ward for prisoners. But now Professor Bhullar’s sentence has been commuted to life, giving the family hope that he could be soon released. Mrs Kaur said: “It has been extremely hard for all the family, particularly for his wife and his mother. This is the first good news that we have had in all those long years. “I would like to thank every one who has helped over the years, especially the Sikh community in Derby and MPs, including Chris Williamson. “We dearly hope and pray for Professor Devinder-Pal Singh to be home again with his family.” Sikh community leader Jaz Rai said: “The love and support that we have seen from the Sikh community and the wider Derby community has been fantastic. “It is good news that he is now off Death Row. “The next step is to have him released but he has already been in prison for a life sentence.

“I would also like to thank the Derby Telegraph who have helped highlight the case of the sorts of injustices that are going on in what is supposed to be the biggest democracy in the world.” Labour Derby North MP Mr Williamson, who is the secretary of the cross-party group of MPs focused on the global abolition of the death penalty, backed the campaign. He said: “It is fantastic news but now the campaign to get him fully released begins. “I believe his conviction is unsafe and I will be continuing to support the campaign and the family to see him freed.”

Source: http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Derby-cousin-8217-s-tears-joy-professor-Death-Row/story-20961394-detail/story.html [accessed 24 April 2014]

Supreme Court commutes death sentence

Published: 1:58 pm, May 1, 2013 Story By: mattersindia.com

New Delhi: The Supreme Court said that the President’s office took too long to reject the clemency  petition of a prisoner on death row and hence  commuted the death sentence of a murderer to life imprisonment. In 1999 MN Das was convicted by the Supreme Court and sentenced to death. His mercy petition was rejected by President Prtibha Patil, 11 years after he filed it. Das had killed a man in Assam in 1990 then six years later while on bail murdered another. His lawyer has cited the delay in asking for the death sentence to be commuted, ndtv.com reports. Other lawyers of death row prisoners also maintain that the “delay is worse than death.”

The latest development comes contrary to the April 11 ruling when the Supreme Court turned down that same argument in the case of Punjab militant  Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, prime accused  in a 1993 bomb blast in Delhi that killed nine people. Bhullar, a member of a separatist group, argued his death sentence should be commuted to life in prison due to the torment he’d suffered awaiting execution. Bhullar’s appeal was turned down by the President after eight years. In his case the Supreme Court had said that terrorists cannot seek mercy by citing inordinate delays in their appeals.

The latest verdict might have a bearing on the cases of more than 15 prisoners on death row. They include three men for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and four members of the gang led by sandalwood smuggler Veerappan. India was among four countries in the last year that resumed using the death penalty.

Since Pranab Mukherjee was appointed president in July he has rejected mercy petitions of at least seven people, leaving them at risk of execution, Amnesty International said. Two people have been hanged — Mumbai attack gunman Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, and Afzal Guru, a Kashmiri found guilty of participating in a strike on India’s parliament in 2001. Kasab’s was the country’s first execution since 2004.

Source: http://mattersindia.com/supreme-court-commutes-death-sentence/ [accessed 05th May 2013]

SC rejects Devinder Pal Bhullar's plea, upholds death in 1993 blast case

Ashok Bagriya CNN-IBN | 12-Apr 11:29 AM

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the mercy petition of Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, who had sought commutation of his death penalty to life sentence on the ground that there was inordinate delay by the President over his plea for clemency. The court said that delay cannot be a ground for commuting death sentence to a life term. Bhullar was sentenced to death in 2003 for carrying out a bomb blast outside the Delhi Youth Congress office in 1993 that left nine people dead.
The court observed that the petitioner could not make out a case for commuting his death penalty. "The Supreme Court should have considered our plea," Bhullar's wife said reacting to the verdict.
Bhullar had also sought mercy on grounds that he has been mentally unfit for the past 11 years. "If someone is mentally sick that person cannot be executed, we will have to go through the judgement," lawyer Majid Memon said.

Former chief of the Indian Youth Congress MS Bitta, who is now the chairman of the All-India Anti-Terrorist Front, said the judgement was not expected. "I was not expecting this judgement, Sheila Dikshit declared Bhullar a mentally sick person. It's a crucial judgement," Bitta said. However, he added, "This is justice for those who died in that blast."

Bhullar had approached the Supreme Court in 2011, saying that his death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment, because there was an inordinate delay by the President over his plea for clemency. His mercy petition was pending for 8 years.Bhullar had filed his original mercy plea to commute the sentence to life imprisonment in 2003. It was rejected in 2011, a week after he approached the Supreme Court.

The apex court's verdict paves way for the execution of others on death row like the Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts. The lawyer of Nalini, one of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, expressed disappointment on the court's order. "The order of the Supreme Court is disappointing, it has not taken in consideration the ground realities in the country," lawyer S Doraiswamy said.

Source: http://m.ibnlive.com/news/sc-rejects-devinder-bhullars-plea-upholds-death-in-1993-blast-case/384762-37-64.html [accessed on 13th April 2013]

Government counters Bhullar bid to escape the death penalty

By Mail Today Reporter

Last updated at 8:25 PM on 25th February 2012

The Centre has submitted before the Supreme Court that death-row convict Devender Pal Singh Bhullar was wrongly relying on the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights to seek commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment.

The Union home ministry told the apex court in an affidavit that the constituent countries in the United Nations were 'sovereign' and had the right to determine their own legal jurisprudence.

The affidavit, filed by joint secretary J.L. Chugh, says death sentence was 'constitutionally approved and permissible' in India and the covenant only talked of desirability of abolition of capital punishment.

Chugh said India was free under the covenant to make provisions for sentences for offences provided in the statutes.

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights refers to the desirability of the abolition of the death penalty by member nations.

The second optional protocol of the convention, however, mandates abolition of death sentence. India has not signed the second protocol.

On Bhullar citing the covenant, the Centre said he was trying to divert the attention and his argument has no merit in the case.

'Abolition of death penalty in India is a different issue which has no connection to the issue of disposal of the mercy petition under the constitutional scheme,' the Centre said.
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2106456/Government-counters-Bhullar-bid-escape-death-penalty.html?ito=feeds-newsxml [accessed on 28th Feb 2012]