Time to re-think Capital Punishment: A regressive approach

The following article is written by Rashmi Bishnoi, a 3rd year law student of Jindal Global Law School.

“An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind”

..Mahatama Gandhi

At the United Nations where majority of countries said that it was time to abolish the death penalty. India along with several south Asian nations voted against the resolution and argued in favour of death penalty. Till now, death penalty is continued to be imposed in the rarest of the rare cases but I contend that it should be abolished exhaustively for it to not only be barbaric, immoral and unconstitutional but also a regressive approach in a civilized world.

Is Death Penalty discriminatory?

The following article is written by Ms. Barkha Yadav.

Straight after hanging of Yakub Memon the death penalty debate again resurfaced. Everyone is talking about whether it acts as a deterrent or not? Whether it should be abolished and if not then how should it be applied? But very few have actually spoken about the barbaric and discriminatory way in which death penalty is applied in our country? In my opinion death penalty should be abolished because it gives too much discretion to the judges to decide whether a case falls under the rarest of rare provision or not?I think that the judges are not free from the caste and religious biases which are prevelant in our society while awarding death penalty to the convicts. According to a report by National Law University, Delhia vast majority of the prisoners,who are on death row belong to backward castes, economically weaker sections and Muslims. To prove my opinionI will bediscussing two cases that have very similar facts and circumstances but judgments given were very different.

Review Petitions in Death Sentence Cases not to be by Circulation; only in Open Court & by Bench of atleast Three Judges

  

"When it comes to death penalty cases, we feel that the power of spoken word has to be given yet another opportunity even if the ultimate success rate is minimal."

A five-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, headed by Chief Justice R.M. Lodha, by 4-1 majority, in the case of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq vs. The Registrar Supreme Court of India & Ors. threw to the wind its approx. 60-year-old rule  and held that hearing of Review Petitions of convicts on death row should not be by circulation but should only be in open Court. The Hon’ble Court further held that hearing of matters in which a death sentence has been passed should be by a Bench of at least three Supreme Court Judges. The majority Judgement was drafted by Hon’ble Justice R.F.Nariman while the dissenting opinion was passed by Justice Chelameshar.

Full text of Judgement can be found here.

The Death Penalty: In Defence of the Abolitionists

"As if one crime of such nature, done by a single man, acting individually, can be expiated by a similar crime done by all men, acting collectively."

-       Lewis Lawes,

(Warden of Sing Sing prison in New York in the 1920s and 30s)

Introduction

Do away with the Death Penalty?

On the dais of the District Court at Ratnagiri, one will find the statue of Late Shri Mancharje Pestanji Khareghat, who served in that Court as District Judge from 1895 to 1900 and again from 1904 to 1910. During his time the death sentence could only be awarded by a judge of the High Court. When Shri Khareghat was offered an elevation to the High Court, he declined on the ground that he could not, and would never be, a party to the death sentence. It is for this reason that the Ld. District Court Judge is still well known among Judges and senior members of the Bar.