New Delhi:
After 53 years it favoured retention of the death penalty in statute books, the Law Commission of India on Monday in a path breaking move made recommendations to abolish for all crimes other than terrorism-related offences and waging war against the country.
In a developing world, India stands among one of the 59 countries to have the provision of capital punishment under law. In many countries, including US, where the capital punishment is still practiced, there is hardly any evidence whatsoever to prove its deterrence. In US, death penalty was re-imposed in the year 1976 in selected states. Since then, many studies have shown that there is hardly any declination in number of heinous crimes in the states where capital punishment was still being awarded under law.
The law panel has made caveat for terrorism under its recommendation. However, the deterrence of capital punishment in case of terror activity is questionable itself. Time and again it has been proved that a terrorist who is seeking death to reach heaven is hardly bothered by any hangman waiting for him. However, this caveat will stop a debate from many sceptics. Terrorism hit countries like Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, and many other nations are executing ever-more people but there is hardly any effect on the militant activities in these nations.
The doctrine of 'rarest of rare' is undefined by law book and remains disputable. 'ROR' which depends on the conscience of the Judge have no defined parameters under the law. The provision provides the supreme power in the hands of judge, where he acts as the decider of someone life. As the inquisitives say, a judge-a human-writing death for convict-another human-is a breach of the constitutional right of life and the right to life provided under UNHRC-the point can’t be written off completely.
Not only the death penalty appears unjust, but the major fact which stands still is-it can't be undone. As noted by the Law Commission in its report, in last decade numerous executions have faced criticisms of being unfair in their quantum. If quoted in sic, the report reads “numerous occasions expressed concern about arbitrary sentencing”.
However, the backers of death penalty have their own definitions, as for them it’s the ‘need of the hour’. Indian judiciary also, has always been a believer of preaching stringent punishment as a deterrent against crime and its doer. In a recent case when the validity of death penalty (sec 364 IPC) for kidnapping was challenged the Supreme Court had its own, unquestionable point of view for not ending it. “The gradual growth of the challenges posed by kidnapping and abductions for ransom, not only by ordinary criminals for monetary gain or as an organised activity for economic gains, but by terrorist organisations is what necessitated the incorporation of Section 364A of the IPC and a stringent punishment for those indulging in such activities,” noted the bench, also comprising Justices R K Agrawal and Adarsh G Goel.
Whether it’s really the 'need of the hour' or only a deceit, remains a question but what stands forth as a fact is India’s Constitution finds it hard to keep its principal while having capital punishment in its statue books.
