Skip to main content

Convicts can’t be hanged secretly and hurriedly: Supreme Court


NEW DELHI: Condemned prisoners also have a right to dignity, the Supreme Court has said holding that execution of death sentence cannot be carried out in an arbitrary, hurried and secret manner without allowing death row convicts to exhaust all legal remedies and meet family members.
“Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution does not end with the confirmation of the death sentence. Even in cases of death row convicts, their right to dignity must be protected,” said a bench of justices A K Sikri and U U Lalit while quashing the execution warrants of a young woman and her lover, convicted for killing seven members of her family including a 10-month-old baby in Uttar Pradesh in 2008.
The court’s observations assume significance in the context of the hue and cry raised by human rights activists after Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru was hanged in the capital’s Tihar jail in 2013 even before his family members could get the intimation.
In case of the couple — Shabnam and Saleem — the bench said, “We find that death warrant was signed by the sessions judge in haste without waiting for convict to exhaust all legal remedies.” It pointed out that the condemned prisoners can file review petition before the Supreme Court and can also seek mercy from the the President or Governor for commuting their sentence.
Referring to the Allahabad HC order on procedure to be followed for execution of death sentence, the bench said the principles of natural justice must be followed and sufficient notice given to the convict before the issuance of death warrant to enable him/her to pursue legal recourse and have a final meeting with family members before execution. In cases where a convict is not in a position to get legal assistance, legal aid must be provided, it said.
The bench expressed surprised on the “unwarranted” haste with which the Amroha court issued execution warrants, just six days after the Supreme Court awarded death sentence to the couple on May 15 for wiping out the woman’s entire family— parents, two brothers, sister-in-law and two minors – to remove opposition to their affair and also grab family property. Courtesy:Times of India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MCS MAHARASHTRA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY MODEL BYE LAWS 1 TO 100

MODEL BYE – LAWS OF COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY (Tenant Co‐Partnership Housing Society ) 2014 1 I.PRELIMINARY 3 a. The Name of the Society bye Law no 1. a 3 c. The Society is classification bye Law no 1. c 3 a. The registered address of the Society bye Law no 2. a 3 II. INTERPRETATIONS BY E LAW NO 3 3 III. AREA OF OPERATION BYE LAW NO 4 6 IV. OBJECTS 7 5. The objects of the Society bye Law no 5 7 V. AFFILIATION BYE LAW NO 6 7 VI. FUNDS, THEIR UTILISATION AND INVESTMENT 7 ( A ) Raising of Funds bye law no 7 7 (B)Share Capital bye law no 8 8 (C) Limit of Liabilities bye law no 11 8 (D) Constitution of the Reserve Fund bye Law no 12 8 (E) Creation of Other Funds bye law no 13 a. b. c. d. 9 b. Major Repairs Funds bye law no 13 b. 9 (F) Utilisation of the Funds by the Society bye law no 14 9 a. Reserve Fund bye law no 14 a 9 b. Repairs and Maintenance Fund bye law no 14 b 9 c. Sinking Fund bye law no 14 c 9 (G) Investment of Funds
Post a Comment
Read more

MCS MAHARASHTRA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY BYE LAWS 101 TO END

MCS BYE LAWS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST 101 TO END 101. If all the business on the agenda of the General Body Meeting of the Society cannot be transacted on the day on which the General Body Meeting is convened, the meeting shall be postponed to any other suitable date as may be decided by the Members present at the meeting, however not later than 30 days from the date of the meeting. 102. The Chairman of the Society shall preside over all General Body Meetings of the Society, in case if the Chairman is absent or if present and is unwilling to preside, the Members present may elect a person from amongst themselves to preside over the meeting. 103. No proxy or a holder of power of attorney or letter of authority shall be eligible to attend a General Body Meeting of the Society on behalf of a Member of the Society. 104. Voting right of a Member and the Associate Member of the Society shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of
Post a Comment
Read more

Mere Abusive Language not a serious misconduct to inflict capital punishment - Madras High Court in Worker vs Hindustan Unilever Limited

Important Points: Alleged Misconduct: The Worker barged into the shop floor, where the Production Manager and H.R.Executives were holding a meeting with the operators of Hassia Machine;  b) he disrupted the meeting and started abusive language against the Executives and the Manager and scolded the Executive by name Sundaram in a filthy language and c) he also intimidated him by holding him by his shift collar, thereby created an unpleasant atmosphere Long ago, there was prior incident of misconduct. HC's View and reference to series of judgements: - Use of abusive language by itself cannot constitute a serious misconduct fit for capital punishment - The context and the provocations to be borne in mind while determining the punishment - The Class of the work-men and the abuse to be considered from the level where he came from    and also the time lapse which can unwound the harm if any caused - Consider the age of workmen, duration of the dispute  and the feasibility of he getting e
Post a Comment
Read more