SC defines a new norm
The Supreme Court ruling commuting the death sentence of a man convicted for murder to a life term may be a harbinger of hope for death row convicts not involved in acts of terrorism. They could have taken lives due to personal animosity or in crimes of passion, but they may still hope to have the sympathetic ear of the judges of our highest court.
Mahindra Nath Das was guilty of a gruesome murder while on bail in another murder case. But even after two brutal murders, the judges made a distinction between terror and other extreme crimes against individuals, possibly caused by extreme provocation or animosity. Notwithstanding the fact that the President had declined his mercy plea, the Supreme Court commuted his sentence on compassionate grounds, particularly as the President’s office had taken a very long time before rejecting the plea for mercy.
On the other hand, the fact that courts had not considered even a delay of eight years in deciding a mercy petition in the case of terror accused Devender Pal Singh Bhullar and wished not to show him any sympathy makes it clear that anyone plotting acts of terror can expect no relief. In many ways, this is a cause célèbre. What the ruling appears to indicate is that those on death row convicted on terror charges may have to accept that they will be going to the gallows. In today’s day and age, terrorism is a far more heinous crime and the judges have unequivocally defined that.
Post new comment