Sep 03 2014 : The Times of India (Delhi)
Death row convicts get one final open hearing
Dhananjay Mahapatra
|
New Delhi:
|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to shed its nearly 60-year-old rule to allow death row convicts another chance to argue in open court and plead for life, further narrowing down the possibility of the application of death penalty.A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice R M Lodha, by 4-1 majority, decided in favour of giving condemned prisoners another chance to seek life term by ruling that petitions seeking review of judgments upholding capital punishment would henceforth be heard in open court.
Till now, all review petitions were considered in chamber by the judges with out taking assistance from petitioners’ lawyers. Now, the court said the rule would be diluted to allow open court hearing for such petitions against SC judgments confirming death sentence by a three-judge bench. The judgment to hear in open court review petitions against death sentences confirmed by the SC was in keeping with the trend where the apex court has tried to restrict the scope for imposition of death penalty and had suggested standardization and tightening of the `rarest of rare' category .
Writing the majority judgment on behalf of the CJI R M Lodha and Justices J S Khehar and A K Sikri, Justice R F Nariman said, “We feel that when a convict who has suffered the sentence of death and files a review petition, the necessity of oral hearing in such review petition becomes an integral part of `reasonable procedure'.“ Justice J Chelameswar struck the lone dissent note.
Nariman said it was necessary to go beyond traditional procedures. “Death penalty is irreversible in nature. Once a death sentence is executed, that results in taking away life of the convict. If it is found thereafter that such a sentence was not warranted, that would be of no use as the life of that person cannot be brought back. This being so, we feel that if the fundamental right to life is involved, any procedure should be just, fair and reasonable. We feel that a limited oral hearing even at the review stage is mandated by Article 21,“ added Nariman.
Would apex court judges, who have long experience in discerning genuine cases, not be able to identify cases where death penalty needed to be converted to life term while considering review petitions in chamber without hearing the lawyers? The majority judgment answered it in simple words, “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.“
For the full report, log on to http:www.timesofindia.com
Till now, all review petitions were considered in chamber by the judges with out taking assistance from petitioners’ lawyers. Now, the court said the rule would be diluted to allow open court hearing for such petitions against SC judgments confirming death sentence by a three-judge bench. The judgment to hear in open court review petitions against death sentences confirmed by the SC was in keeping with the trend where the apex court has tried to restrict the scope for imposition of death penalty and had suggested standardization and tightening of the `rarest of rare' category .
Writing the majority judgment on behalf of the CJI R M Lodha and Justices J S Khehar and A K Sikri, Justice R F Nariman said, “We feel that when a convict who has suffered the sentence of death and files a review petition, the necessity of oral hearing in such review petition becomes an integral part of `reasonable procedure'.“ Justice J Chelameswar struck the lone dissent note.
Nariman said it was necessary to go beyond traditional procedures. “Death penalty is irreversible in nature. Once a death sentence is executed, that results in taking away life of the convict. If it is found thereafter that such a sentence was not warranted, that would be of no use as the life of that person cannot be brought back. This being so, we feel that if the fundamental right to life is involved, any procedure should be just, fair and reasonable. We feel that a limited oral hearing even at the review stage is mandated by Article 21,“ added Nariman.
Would apex court judges, who have long experience in discerning genuine cases, not be able to identify cases where death penalty needed to be converted to life term while considering review petitions in chamber without hearing the lawyers? The majority judgment answered it in simple words, “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.“
For the full report, log on to http:www.timesofindia.com
