The New Indian ExpressFirst Published : 27 May 2011 10:25:00 PM ISTLast Updated : 28 May 2011 12:31:45 AM IST
Nobody questions the President of India on the grounds on which she accepts or rejects a mercy petition. Pratibha Patil would have had the right reasons to reject the mercy petitions of a Khalistani militant and a murderer from Assam. The rejection became newsworthy as it was the first time since 2004 that the president rejected such a petition. What is most distressing is that the decision came only after one of the condemned prisoners approached the apex court seeking an end to the uncertainty on his petition. In both cases the petitions have been pending with the president for several years.
Though the president alone has the power of pardon, her decision is based on the advice given by the Union home ministry which, in turn, draws upon a report from the state, where the incident occurred. It would be improper to say that the president is just a cog in the wheel of the bureaucratic process, though it won’t be all that untruthful. While the Constitution invests the president with this power, it has not set any timeframe for a decision. It’s this lacuna in the system that has allowed bureaucrats to sit almost interminably on mercy petitions, while the petitioners rot in the jails.
As long as all those on the death row are entitled to plead for mercy, there will be no shortage of such petitions. This is all the more reason that a reasonable period is set for deciding such petitions, given the fact that it is an injustice to keep their fate hanging. Criminologists are one in admitting that certainty of punishment is the best deterrent against crime. Yet, the mercy petitions of, say, Afzal Guru, who attacked Parliament in 2001, and Ajmal Kasab, one of the perpetrators of 26/11, have been pending with the president for no rhyme or reason
No comments:
Post a Comment