oppn parties SC Says Death Row Convicts Have Right to Dignity and Judicial Remedy

News Snippets

  • Supreme Court rules that functional disability should be the deciding factor in granting road accident damages and not any doctor-issued disability certificate
  • Supreme Court flagged the fact that nearly 56% of the vehicles plying in India were uninsured and asked the government to challan them
  • An Air India flight from Phuket to Delhi encountered severe turbulence and 17 passengers were admitted to hospital with injuries
  • Calcutta HC said that heavens won't fall if Vande Matram is made mandatory to sing in madrasas
  • Kolkata Municipal Corporation has sought government nod for increasing city's wards to 200+ to keep residents in each ward between 16000 to 18000
  • Government has said that partially filled online Census forms may be allowed
  • Government may allow fees on UPI payments above Rs 2000, except on transfer between two individuals
  • Brent crude falls below $80 per barrel
  • Government has increased the LIC offer for sale to Rs 31,400cr with an additional 4% on the block
  • Stock markets become nervous on Tuesday due to Gulf situation: Sensex slides 210 points and Nifty sheds 159 points ahead of RBI MPC meets today
  • Indian cricket team lands in Sri Lanka for a 2-Test series
  • A former French Navy pilot who had alleged that IAF had lost Rafales during Operation Sindoor has been held in France on spying charges
  • An ordinary zari worked living just 100km away from Kolkata was stunned to find Rs 100cr deposited in the bank account. The bank has frozen her account pending enquiry
  • Businessmen in Kolkata gets a Rs 5-crore extortion call, allegedly from the Lawrence Bishnoi gang
  • NTA floats tenders to secure offices and exam materials round-the-clock
Tarun Tejpal, former editor of Tehelka, was sentenced to 10 years in jail by Bombay HC for raping a colleague. This judgment overturns the acquittal by a Goa sessions court
oppn parties
SC Says Death Row Convicts Have Right to Dignity and Judicial Remedy

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2015-09-23 18:02:30

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
Does a person lose his right to life with dignity and access to legal aid the minute his death warrant is signed by a court of law? The Supreme Court does not think so. The apex court rightly said that due process of law should be followed in all such cases as the signing of the death warrant does not mean the convict will eventually be hanged. For, he has the option to file a review petition in the Supreme Court and then ask for mercy from the state Governor and failing that, the President.

In the case of the couple Shabnam and Saleem, although the court had earlier upheld the death penalty for the couple who were accused of murdering 7 members of the girl’s family, including a 10 month old child, it stayed their sentence as the Sessions court in Amroha district of UP did not follow procedures and guidelines in signing the death warrant.

The lower court threw all judicial norms and detailed guidelines laid down by both SC and the Allahabad HC to the wind and signed the death warrant in a record six days after the SC judgment upholding the death sentence. The norm is to wait for at least 30 days to give the convicts time to seek judicial remedy available to them.

The Supreme Court was also of the opinion that dignity should be accorded to death row convicts. If they are not able to arrange for legal assistance, the same must be provided by the court. They must be allowed to meet family members. The Court was of the opinion that convicts should not be hanged secretly and in haste.

It is surprising that the Amroha judge signed the death warrant despite the guidelines. Either he was not aware of the same or chose to ignore them. Both ways, he has showed tremendous incompetence and should be taken to task for it. There is a famous saying that ignorance of law is not an excuse for committing a crime. This applies to the layman. But what is the remedy if a judge displays such ignorance of law and legal procedures?