The execution of Mohammad Afzal Guru in the 2001 Parliament attack case evoked a mixed response from the legal fraternity. Some senior lawyers said Afzal’s hanging has proven that the law of the land is above politics and has given out a strong message to the world that India is not soft on terror.
However, many legal experts questioned the “politics” involved in delaying Afzal’s mercy petition, which they said amounted to inflicting cruelty on him.
Supreme Court advocate Kamini Jaiswal said that at the crucial stage of trial, Afzal did not have access to a defence lawyer and the amicus curiae appointed later by the trial court did not perform a satisfactory job.
“Afzal did not get proper defence (at trial stage). He told the court he was not involved in the attack but his lawyer (appointed later) said “dont hang me but give me an injection and kill me.” Wasn’t that absurd? The SC judgment itself says that there was no direct evidence against him but only circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court itself said he was being given death penalty ‘to assuage the collective conscience of the people’.”
Former solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam, however, said, “The Parliament attack case was one of the most brilliantly argued cases from the defence side. It was conducted completely on professional lines. The evidence was properly examined and the judgement was supported completely by evidence.”
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Dushyant Dave said Afzal’s execution has sent a strong message to the world that India is dealing firmly with terror.