MIRPUR: The 28th death anniversary of Muhammad Maqbool Butt, a leader of the Kashmir Freedom Movement, was observed on Saturday on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC) with a renewed pledge to continue his mission till the achievement of the right of self-determination.
Processions were taken out to pay tribute to Butt who was awarded the death sentence by India. He was hanged on February 11, 1984, in New Delhi’s Tihar Jail for demanding the birthright of self determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir state under the UN resolutions and the liberation of Kashmir from Indian subjugation.
Speakers called upon the international community to exert pressure on India to immediately hand over Butt’s dead body to his family members. Speakers said that Butt’s sacrifice infused a new spirit among Kashmiris to accelerate their struggle for the achievement of their fundamental right of self-determination denied by India for the past 63 years.
Speakers also demanded the immediate demilitarisation of Indian-held Kashmir, unconditional release of all political detainees and repeal of black laws. Speakers appreciated the opening of routes across the LoC by India and Pakistan and demanded the revival of all other natural routes to enable the free movement of Kashmiris from either side without any discrimination.
Earlier, hundreds of activists of JKNLF, JKLF, Plebiscite Front, NSF and other social and political organisations took out a torch-bearing procession from Shaheed Chowk on Friday night, to highlight the contribution of the martyred Kashmiri leader to the freedom struggle.
The participants of the rally lit candles in memory of Kashmiri martyrs. Speakers urged the world community to help stop massive human rights abuses in Indian-held Kashmir. Across the LoC, Butt’s death was marked with a complete strike across the held valley.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 12th, 2012.
Source: http://tribune.com.pk/story/335155/death-anniversary-kashmiri-freedom-fighter-remembered/ accessed on 13th February 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
2003 Mumbai blasts: HC upholds death sentence of 3 Lashkar militants
PTI | Feb 10, 2012, 05.51PM IST
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Friday upheld the death sentence of three LeT members, including a couple, in the 2003 twin Mumbai blasts that claimed 52 lives.
A division bench of Justice A M Khanvilkar and P D Kode confirmed the death penalty awarded to Ashrat Ansari (32), Hanif Sayed Anees (46) and his wife Fehmida Sayed (43) but partially quashed the order of the trial court discharging two other accused on the basis of a report of the POTA review committee.
The high court upheld death sentence awarded to them on all three counts of perpetrating terror, criminal conspiracy and murder.
Mohammed Ansari Ladoowala and Mohammed Hasan Batterywala will now have to face trial, but only under IPC charges that had been levelled against them and not under POTA. The court directed them to appear before the trial court in four weeks for proceedings to be initiated.
The bench, however, stayed the sentence for eight weeks to allow the convicts to file an appeal in the Supreme Court, in response to the request of their counsel, Sudeep Pasbola.
The court had on November 12, 2011 reserved its judgement on confirmation of death sentence to the three after agruments concluded at a special hearing.
The three had been found guilty by a POTA court of planting powerful bombs in two taxis which exploded at the iconic Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar on August 25, 2003. They were awarded death sentence on August 6.
The conspiracy for the blasts had been hatched by Hanif, Ashrat, Nasir, a Hyderabad resident, who was later killed in a police encounter, and some Pakistani nationals owing allegiance to LeT in Dubai.
The LeT's role in the twin blasts was revealed by an accused-turned-approver. The approver was given a pardon by the court after public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam submitted a certificate saying he may be discharged.
It was for the first time that LeT had used a family to carry out bomb blasts in the country.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/2003-Mumbai-blasts-HC-upholds-death-sentence-of-3-Lashkar-militants/articleshow/11838208.cms
accessed on 10th February 2012
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Friday upheld the death sentence of three LeT members, including a couple, in the 2003 twin Mumbai blasts that claimed 52 lives.
A division bench of Justice A M Khanvilkar and P D Kode confirmed the death penalty awarded to Ashrat Ansari (32), Hanif Sayed Anees (46) and his wife Fehmida Sayed (43) but partially quashed the order of the trial court discharging two other accused on the basis of a report of the POTA review committee.
The high court upheld death sentence awarded to them on all three counts of perpetrating terror, criminal conspiracy and murder.
Mohammed Ansari Ladoowala and Mohammed Hasan Batterywala will now have to face trial, but only under IPC charges that had been levelled against them and not under POTA. The court directed them to appear before the trial court in four weeks for proceedings to be initiated.
The bench, however, stayed the sentence for eight weeks to allow the convicts to file an appeal in the Supreme Court, in response to the request of their counsel, Sudeep Pasbola.
The court had on November 12, 2011 reserved its judgement on confirmation of death sentence to the three after agruments concluded at a special hearing.
The three had been found guilty by a POTA court of planting powerful bombs in two taxis which exploded at the iconic Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar on August 25, 2003. They were awarded death sentence on August 6.
The conspiracy for the blasts had been hatched by Hanif, Ashrat, Nasir, a Hyderabad resident, who was later killed in a police encounter, and some Pakistani nationals owing allegiance to LeT in Dubai.
The LeT's role in the twin blasts was revealed by an accused-turned-approver. The approver was given a pardon by the court after public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam submitted a certificate saying he may be discharged.
It was for the first time that LeT had used a family to carry out bomb blasts in the country.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/2003-Mumbai-blasts-HC-upholds-death-sentence-of-3-Lashkar-militants/articleshow/11838208.cms
accessed on 10th February 2012
Final hearing of death-row convict's petition on Thursday
J. Venkatesan: NEW DELHI, February 8, 2012
Mercy petition turned down by President after a delay of 12 years
The Supreme Court on Tuesday posted for final hearing on Thursday a Special Leave Petition filed by death-row convict Mahendra Nath Das, whose mercy petition was rejected by the President after an inordinate delay of 12 years and plea for commutation to life imprisonment on this ground was dismissed by the Gauhati High Court.
A Bench of Justices A.K. Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar, without passing any order on his petition seeking stay on execution of death sentence, posted the main SLP, against the High Court order dated January 30, for final hearing on February 9.
Das, in his writ petition, had contended that the delay in deciding his mercy petition by the President and finally giving the assent for the death sentence had resulted in excruciating agony and trauma for almost 12 years for no explainable reasons and this was a valid ground for awarding life sentence.
On Tuesday, it was submitted by senior counsel Shyam Divan, along with counsel Vrinda Grover, that a Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and S.J. Mukhopadhaya had already listed for final hearing on February 22 the appeals filed by Devendar Pal Singh Bhullar and other connected matters relating to delay in deciding clemency petitions and that the appeal filed by Das be also listed before the same Bench.
However, the Bench said it would hear the matter and issued notice to Solicitor-General Rohinton Nariman and the State of Assam and posted it for final hearing on February 9, when it is expected to take a decision to stay his execution or not.
The last execution the country witnessed was that of Dhananjay Chatterjee in 2004.
In December last, a Bench headed by Justice Singhvi in its order had said: “A perusal of the list enclosed with the information made available by the President's Secretariat on June 2, 2011 shows that as many as 17 mercy petitions were processed. Keeping in view the importance of the issue arising in the writ petition and the fact that a large number of other persons may not be, due to sheer ignorance, able to file petition under Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution or move the Court as has been done by the petitioner in this case, we request senior counsels Ram Jethmalani and T.R. Andhyarujina of this Court to assist us as amicus curiae.”
The Bench asked the Additional Solicitor-General to place before the Court a compilation containing details of mercy petitions received by the Government of India and the governments of different States and their status as on the date of preparation of the compilation.
The Bench said that the copies of the compilation should be made available to counsel assisting Mr. Jethmalani and Mr. Andhyarujina.
The case of the prosecution was that on April 24, 1996, Mahendra Das beheaded Harakanta Das at Fancy Bazaar and surrendered with the victim's head. He was arrested and put in jail in 1997 after the sessions court ordered his execution.
The Gauhati High Court and Supreme Court upheld capital punishment in 1998 and 1999 respectively. Subsequently, Mahendra Das' family moved a mercy petition to the then President K. R Narayanan in 1999. The plea was finally turned down in May 2011 by President Pratibha Devisingh Patil, setting the stage for his hanging. The High Court, on September 8, 2011, dismissed a writ petition filed by the convict's mother, Kusumbala Das, for commuting her son's death sentence to life imprisonment, holding that she had no locus standi to file it on behalf of her son. Then, Mahendra Das filed a writ petition pleading for commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment since he had already spent about 14 years in jail during the disposal of his petition seeking presidential clemency.
There had been protests against the death sentence of Mahendra Das. Even Amnesty International expressed concern over his imminent execution.
Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2869581.ece
accessed on 10th February 2012
Mercy petition turned down by President after a delay of 12 years
The Supreme Court on Tuesday posted for final hearing on Thursday a Special Leave Petition filed by death-row convict Mahendra Nath Das, whose mercy petition was rejected by the President after an inordinate delay of 12 years and plea for commutation to life imprisonment on this ground was dismissed by the Gauhati High Court.
A Bench of Justices A.K. Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar, without passing any order on his petition seeking stay on execution of death sentence, posted the main SLP, against the High Court order dated January 30, for final hearing on February 9.
Das, in his writ petition, had contended that the delay in deciding his mercy petition by the President and finally giving the assent for the death sentence had resulted in excruciating agony and trauma for almost 12 years for no explainable reasons and this was a valid ground for awarding life sentence.
On Tuesday, it was submitted by senior counsel Shyam Divan, along with counsel Vrinda Grover, that a Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and S.J. Mukhopadhaya had already listed for final hearing on February 22 the appeals filed by Devendar Pal Singh Bhullar and other connected matters relating to delay in deciding clemency petitions and that the appeal filed by Das be also listed before the same Bench.
However, the Bench said it would hear the matter and issued notice to Solicitor-General Rohinton Nariman and the State of Assam and posted it for final hearing on February 9, when it is expected to take a decision to stay his execution or not.
The last execution the country witnessed was that of Dhananjay Chatterjee in 2004.
In December last, a Bench headed by Justice Singhvi in its order had said: “A perusal of the list enclosed with the information made available by the President's Secretariat on June 2, 2011 shows that as many as 17 mercy petitions were processed. Keeping in view the importance of the issue arising in the writ petition and the fact that a large number of other persons may not be, due to sheer ignorance, able to file petition under Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution or move the Court as has been done by the petitioner in this case, we request senior counsels Ram Jethmalani and T.R. Andhyarujina of this Court to assist us as amicus curiae.”
The Bench asked the Additional Solicitor-General to place before the Court a compilation containing details of mercy petitions received by the Government of India and the governments of different States and their status as on the date of preparation of the compilation.
The Bench said that the copies of the compilation should be made available to counsel assisting Mr. Jethmalani and Mr. Andhyarujina.
The case of the prosecution was that on April 24, 1996, Mahendra Das beheaded Harakanta Das at Fancy Bazaar and surrendered with the victim's head. He was arrested and put in jail in 1997 after the sessions court ordered his execution.
The Gauhati High Court and Supreme Court upheld capital punishment in 1998 and 1999 respectively. Subsequently, Mahendra Das' family moved a mercy petition to the then President K. R Narayanan in 1999. The plea was finally turned down in May 2011 by President Pratibha Devisingh Patil, setting the stage for his hanging. The High Court, on September 8, 2011, dismissed a writ petition filed by the convict's mother, Kusumbala Das, for commuting her son's death sentence to life imprisonment, holding that she had no locus standi to file it on behalf of her son. Then, Mahendra Das filed a writ petition pleading for commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment since he had already spent about 14 years in jail during the disposal of his petition seeking presidential clemency.
There had been protests against the death sentence of Mahendra Das. Even Amnesty International expressed concern over his imminent execution.
Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2869581.ece
accessed on 10th February 2012
SC notices to Centre, State on death penalty
The Assam Tribune: Guwahati, Wednesday, February 08, 2012
NEW DELHI, Feb. 7 – The Supreme Court has issued notices to Assam Government and the Centre in response to a petition filed by Kusumbala Das, mother of Mahendra Nath Das, who is on death row.
His mother has through her counsel pleaded that his death penalty be commuted to life sentence. The case was raised as an urgent matter in the Court of Justice AK Patnaik and Justice S Kumar.
After hearing the petitioner, the Bench issued notices to Government of Assam and the Union Government.
Das is awaiting execution in Jorhat, after the President of India rejected his mercy petition. This would be the first execution in India since 2004.
Das was sentenced to death in August 1997 for a murder in Guwahati, Assam in 1996. His mercy petition was rejected by the President of India in May 2011, following the advice of theGovernment of India.
The judicial process was completed after the High Court confirmed the death sentence in February 1998 and the Supreme Court rejected the appeal in May 1999. A mercy petition was sent to the Government of India in 2000.
Amnesty International is concerned that the eleven-year delay in announcing the verdict of the mercy petition and the resultant prolonged stay ondeath row may amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
NEW DELHI, Feb. 7 – The Supreme Court has issued notices to Assam Government and the Centre in response to a petition filed by Kusumbala Das, mother of Mahendra Nath Das, who is on death row.
His mother has through her counsel pleaded that his death penalty be commuted to life sentence. The case was raised as an urgent matter in the Court of Justice AK Patnaik and Justice S Kumar.
After hearing the petitioner, the Bench issued notices to Government of Assam and the Union Government.
Das is awaiting execution in Jorhat, after the President of India rejected his mercy petition. This would be the first execution in India since 2004.
Das was sentenced to death in August 1997 for a murder in Guwahati, Assam in 1996. His mercy petition was rejected by the President of India in May 2011, following the advice of theGovernment of India.
The judicial process was completed after the High Court confirmed the death sentence in February 1998 and the Supreme Court rejected the appeal in May 1999. A mercy petition was sent to the Government of India in 2000.
Amnesty International is concerned that the eleven-year delay in announcing the verdict of the mercy petition and the resultant prolonged stay ondeath row may amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
Death penalty: Supreme Court notice to govt on crucial special leave petition
Manoj Mitta, TNN Feb 8, 2012, 06.02AM IST
NEW DELHI: The death penalty has been challenged in all the three cases citing the same reason: the inordinate delay on the part of the President in rejecting the mercy petitions of the convicts concerned. But different benches of the Supreme Court are treating this vital issue in conflicting ways on the decisions made by the President last year on the home ministry's advice.
As for the special leave petition (SLP) filed by Mahendra Nath Das of Assam, the bench comprising Justice A K Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar issued notices on Tuesday to the Centre and state while declining to stay his execution. If his SLP is rejected in the final hearing fixed for Thursday, Das may become the first convict to be hanged in India since Dhananjay Chatterjee's execution in 2004.
The line of action adopted by the Pattanaik bench in Das's case is a far cry from the one adopted three months ago by the bench comprising Justice G S Singhvi and Justice S J Mukhopadhaya in high-profile and politically sensitive cases relating to the Rajiv Gandhi assassins and Devendar Pal Singh Bhullar. The Singhvi bench, having stayed the execution of capital punishment in both cases, is due to hold elaborate proceedings from February 22 on whether the President's rejection of the mercy petition could be overruled by the SC on the ground of "unexplained delay" lasting over a decade to take a final call.
Given the importance of the matter from the viewpoint of human rights, the Singhvi bench had appointed two senior constitutional experts, Ram Jethmalani and T R Andhyarujina, to assist it as amicus curiae.
Since his mercy petition had been stuck with the President for 12 years, the SC's registry should have logically placed Das's SLP before the Singhvi bench. At the final hearing due on Thursday, it remains to be seen whether the Pattnaik bench, redressing the anomaly that has arisen out of the registry's oversight, will refer Das's SLP to the Singhvi bench in the interest of consistency.
The SC's pronouncement on if delay in the disposal of mercy petition can have the effect of commuting death penalty to life sentence may affect pending mercy petitions, including Afzal Guru's.
Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-02-08/india/31036765_1_mercy-petition-final-hearing-bench
accessed on 10th February 2012
NEW DELHI: The death penalty has been challenged in all the three cases citing the same reason: the inordinate delay on the part of the President in rejecting the mercy petitions of the convicts concerned. But different benches of the Supreme Court are treating this vital issue in conflicting ways on the decisions made by the President last year on the home ministry's advice.
As for the special leave petition (SLP) filed by Mahendra Nath Das of Assam, the bench comprising Justice A K Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar issued notices on Tuesday to the Centre and state while declining to stay his execution. If his SLP is rejected in the final hearing fixed for Thursday, Das may become the first convict to be hanged in India since Dhananjay Chatterjee's execution in 2004.
The line of action adopted by the Pattanaik bench in Das's case is a far cry from the one adopted three months ago by the bench comprising Justice G S Singhvi and Justice S J Mukhopadhaya in high-profile and politically sensitive cases relating to the Rajiv Gandhi assassins and Devendar Pal Singh Bhullar. The Singhvi bench, having stayed the execution of capital punishment in both cases, is due to hold elaborate proceedings from February 22 on whether the President's rejection of the mercy petition could be overruled by the SC on the ground of "unexplained delay" lasting over a decade to take a final call.
Given the importance of the matter from the viewpoint of human rights, the Singhvi bench had appointed two senior constitutional experts, Ram Jethmalani and T R Andhyarujina, to assist it as amicus curiae.
Since his mercy petition had been stuck with the President for 12 years, the SC's registry should have logically placed Das's SLP before the Singhvi bench. At the final hearing due on Thursday, it remains to be seen whether the Pattnaik bench, redressing the anomaly that has arisen out of the registry's oversight, will refer Das's SLP to the Singhvi bench in the interest of consistency.
The SC's pronouncement on if delay in the disposal of mercy petition can have the effect of commuting death penalty to life sentence may affect pending mercy petitions, including Afzal Guru's.
Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-02-08/india/31036765_1_mercy-petition-final-hearing-bench
accessed on 10th February 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
3 get death sentence for murder (2009 case)
TNN Apr 1, 2009, 10.12pm IST
MADIKERI: Kodagu district and sessions court pronounced death sentence for three murder accused, here on Wednesday.
The incident took place on 7-2-2002 in Mysore. The victim was a native of Gonikoppal. The accused were also natives of Gonikoppal.
Gopinath, owner of Prashanth Jewellers, Gonikoppal, had planned to carry 750 grams of gold, 250 grams of silver with Rs 20,000 for cleaning the materials in Mysore on Februaury 7.
On February 6, his friend Manojkumar, the owner of Shri Devi Cushion works, Gonikoppal, came to Gopinath's shop and got information about his travel the next day. He devised a plan taking two of his workers into confidence.
Gopinath was travelling in a KSRTC bus to Mysore from Gonikoppal. The accused followed him in a car. When Gopinath descended the bus for a tea break the trio dragged him to the Hunsur bus stand and carried him in the car.
They mercilessly strangulated him using a nylon rope in Kolgat area. Robbing the gold and silver, the trio hauled the dead body into the car and proceeded to Athur village, which is the native place of Manojkumar. They threw the dead body into the open well behind Manojkumar's house.
Prashanth, the son of the victim enquired with Mysore Jewellers where his father was supposed to go. However, the jewellers confirmed that he had not arrived.
After four days of the incident the victim's son Prashanth complained to then Gonikoppal CI Nagaraj who started an enquiry. Hearing the complaint Manojkumar started detatching himself from Prashanth which led to suspicion and the Gonikoppal police arresting him. Manojkumar cooked up a new story in front of the police saying that had committed the crime on request by the victim's son Prashanth. The police got confused and the government handed the case to COD.
COD inspector Abdul Sattar managed to break the story with proof and the dead body was exhumed and re post mortem was conducted. COD filed a chargesheet under sections 302,365 and 392 for murder, kidnap and robbery in Virajpet Court against Manojkumar and his workers Rafiq and Janardan.
The case was then transferred to the district court. The magistrate Shrikanth Babuladi heard 33 witnesses and passed the death sentence order on Wednesday. QL
Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-04-01/mysore/28033494_1_gopinath-death-sentence-ksrtc-bus accessed on 7th February 2012
MADIKERI: Kodagu district and sessions court pronounced death sentence for three murder accused, here on Wednesday.
The incident took place on 7-2-2002 in Mysore. The victim was a native of Gonikoppal. The accused were also natives of Gonikoppal.
Gopinath, owner of Prashanth Jewellers, Gonikoppal, had planned to carry 750 grams of gold, 250 grams of silver with Rs 20,000 for cleaning the materials in Mysore on Februaury 7.
On February 6, his friend Manojkumar, the owner of Shri Devi Cushion works, Gonikoppal, came to Gopinath's shop and got information about his travel the next day. He devised a plan taking two of his workers into confidence.
Gopinath was travelling in a KSRTC bus to Mysore from Gonikoppal. The accused followed him in a car. When Gopinath descended the bus for a tea break the trio dragged him to the Hunsur bus stand and carried him in the car.
They mercilessly strangulated him using a nylon rope in Kolgat area. Robbing the gold and silver, the trio hauled the dead body into the car and proceeded to Athur village, which is the native place of Manojkumar. They threw the dead body into the open well behind Manojkumar's house.
Prashanth, the son of the victim enquired with Mysore Jewellers where his father was supposed to go. However, the jewellers confirmed that he had not arrived.
After four days of the incident the victim's son Prashanth complained to then Gonikoppal CI Nagaraj who started an enquiry. Hearing the complaint Manojkumar started detatching himself from Prashanth which led to suspicion and the Gonikoppal police arresting him. Manojkumar cooked up a new story in front of the police saying that had committed the crime on request by the victim's son Prashanth. The police got confused and the government handed the case to COD.
COD inspector Abdul Sattar managed to break the story with proof and the dead body was exhumed and re post mortem was conducted. COD filed a chargesheet under sections 302,365 and 392 for murder, kidnap and robbery in Virajpet Court against Manojkumar and his workers Rafiq and Janardan.
The case was then transferred to the district court. The magistrate Shrikanth Babuladi heard 33 witnesses and passed the death sentence order on Wednesday. QL
Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-04-01/mysore/28033494_1_gopinath-death-sentence-ksrtc-bus accessed on 7th February 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Supreme Court strikes down Arms Act provision for mandatory death penalty
Bench says it runs counter to constitutional law and ultra vires Constitution
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declared unconstitutional Section 27 (3) of the Arms Act, which provides for mandatory death sentence to an accused charged with an offence under this provision.
Section 27(3) says: “Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of Section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person shall be punishable with death.”
A Bench of Justices A.K. Ganguly and J.S. Khehar said: “A law which is not consistent with [the] notions of fairness while it imposes an irreversible penalty like death is repugnant to the concept of right and reason.”
Writing the judgment, Justice Ganguly said the scope of Section 27(3) was very wide in that anything done in contravention of Section 7 and with the use of prohibited arms and ammunition resulting in death would attract the death penalty. “Even if an act done in contravention of Section 7, namely, acquisition or possession or manufacture or sale of prohibited arms results in the death of any person, the person in contravention of Section 7 shall be punished with death.”
Dealing with the question arising out of a judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Bench said: “In fact, the challenge to the constitutional validity of [the] death penalty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been negatived in the ‘Bachan Singh case' in view of the sentencing structure in Sections 235 (2) and 354 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. By imposing mandatory death penalty, Section 27 (3) of the Arms Act runs contrary to those statutory safeguards which give [the] judiciary the discretion in the matter imposing [the] death penalty. Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is thus ultra vires the concept of judicial review, which is one of the basic features of our Constitution.”
The Bench said: “This is thus a very drastic provision for many reasons. Apart from the fact that this imposes a mandatory death penalty, the Section is so widely worded to the extent that if, as a result of any accidental or unintentional use or any accident arising out of any act in contravention of Section 7, death results, the only punishment, which has to be mandatorily imposed on the person in contravention, is death. Therefore, the provision of Section 27(3) of the Act is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.”
The Bench said: “Apart from that, Section 27 (3) is a post-constitutional law and has to obey the injunction of Article 13 which is clear and explicit. Article 13 (2) says ‘The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void. In view of the mandate of Article 13 of the Constitution, Section 27(3) having been enacted in clear contravention of fundamental rights, Section 27(3) of the Act is repugnant to Articles 14 and 21 and is void. Section 27(3) of the Act also… [prevents] the judiciary from discharging its constitutional duties of judicial review, whereby it has the power of using discretion in the sentencing procedure.”
The Bench held that this provision was against the fundamental tenets of the constitutional law and ultra vires the Constitution.
The Hindu - 2.2.2012
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declared unconstitutional Section 27 (3) of the Arms Act, which provides for mandatory death sentence to an accused charged with an offence under this provision.
Section 27(3) says: “Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of Section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person shall be punishable with death.”
A Bench of Justices A.K. Ganguly and J.S. Khehar said: “A law which is not consistent with [the] notions of fairness while it imposes an irreversible penalty like death is repugnant to the concept of right and reason.”
Writing the judgment, Justice Ganguly said the scope of Section 27(3) was very wide in that anything done in contravention of Section 7 and with the use of prohibited arms and ammunition resulting in death would attract the death penalty. “Even if an act done in contravention of Section 7, namely, acquisition or possession or manufacture or sale of prohibited arms results in the death of any person, the person in contravention of Section 7 shall be punished with death.”
Dealing with the question arising out of a judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Bench said: “In fact, the challenge to the constitutional validity of [the] death penalty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been negatived in the ‘Bachan Singh case' in view of the sentencing structure in Sections 235 (2) and 354 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. By imposing mandatory death penalty, Section 27 (3) of the Arms Act runs contrary to those statutory safeguards which give [the] judiciary the discretion in the matter imposing [the] death penalty. Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is thus ultra vires the concept of judicial review, which is one of the basic features of our Constitution.”
The Bench said: “This is thus a very drastic provision for many reasons. Apart from the fact that this imposes a mandatory death penalty, the Section is so widely worded to the extent that if, as a result of any accidental or unintentional use or any accident arising out of any act in contravention of Section 7, death results, the only punishment, which has to be mandatorily imposed on the person in contravention, is death. Therefore, the provision of Section 27(3) of the Act is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.”
The Bench said: “Apart from that, Section 27 (3) is a post-constitutional law and has to obey the injunction of Article 13 which is clear and explicit. Article 13 (2) says ‘The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void. In view of the mandate of Article 13 of the Constitution, Section 27(3) having been enacted in clear contravention of fundamental rights, Section 27(3) of the Act is repugnant to Articles 14 and 21 and is void. Section 27(3) of the Act also… [prevents] the judiciary from discharging its constitutional duties of judicial review, whereby it has the power of using discretion in the sentencing procedure.”
The Bench held that this provision was against the fundamental tenets of the constitutional law and ultra vires the Constitution.
The Hindu - 2.2.2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)