Yakub Memon deserved a life sentence. There are too many imponderables for him to be put to death. The assertion of former top intelligence sleuth, now no more, B Raman, that he was promised a light sentence for being an informer, is only one of them. An apparent difference of opinion between Supreme Court judges on whether his sentence should be stayed was reason enough to press the pause button. The apex court has seen its own share of upheavals on this issue.
The Supreme Court admitted in 2009 that it had on occasions deviated from the rules laid down in the Bachhan Singh vs Punjab case in 1980. That verdict stated that death be awarded in the ‘rarest of the rare cases’ and that ‘mitigating circumstances’ of the accused, if any, should be taken into account. As researchers point out, the apex court has admitted to miscarriage of justice in subsequent cases, such as Ram Chander of Rajasthan, who was hanged in May 1996 for having killed his family members three years before. This did not seem to fit in with the ‘rarest of the rare’ condition, yet the case was cited in subsequent death penalty rulings. As for mitigating circumstances, APJ Abdul Kalam’s opposition to the death penalty stemmed from his concern that those in death row were from the lowest rung of society.
The Law Commission and eminent jurists have debated whether the death penalty is efficacious or ethical. Yet, the State time and again gives in to the bloodlust of mobs and demagoguery of TV anchors — which passes off as the ‘collective conscience of the country’.
The judiciary is meant to rise above the rabble. It could have done so, out of respect for Kalam.
A Srinivas Deputy Editor