Kasab has been pronounced guilty,death sentence has been imposed. As long as death sentence is on our statute book and whose constitutionality has been upheld by our Supreme Court,there can be no legal objection to the death sentence because Kasabs case clearly fell in the category of rarest of rare cases. The prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam deserves credit for his role in the prosecution. However,his language while pleading for the death penalty could have been more temperate. Apparently he got carried away and gave the impression that he was baying for Kasabs blood like a bloodhound. Kasab,however despicable,is a human being till he forfeits his life according to law.
What is the next stage? Confirmation of death sentence by the High Court. This need not take years. The paper books can be printed latest by mid- June and the case be listed for hearing by the High Court in July,hearing can be comfortably concluded within four weeks of its commencement and judgment pronounced within two weeks thereafter. An appeal to the Supreme Court is not a matter of right. Assuming Supreme Court grants leave,the appeal can be expeditiously disposed of on a priority basis within a week or ten days.
Besides,protracted detention on the death row and inordinate delay in execution of the sentence may well be regarded as cruel and unusual punishment and result in commutation of death sentence into life imprisonment,as has happened in other jurisdictions and can happen in our country. There is no compulsion to dispose of mercy petitions in chronological sequence. They are not to be equated with applications for posts or reservation of railway tickets. Their disposal should depend on the nature of the issues involved and the urgency for prompt disposal. The snag is that if the requisite political will is lacking or there are considerations of political expediency,mercy petitions will mercilessly linger endlessly.
No more political footballs
A judgment of seminal significance was delivered last Friday by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. Justice RV Raveendran speaking for the Bench ruled that the Governors post is a sensitive one under our constitutional scheme and he cannot be regarded as a mere employee of the Centre. The Bench held that the power to remove the Governor must be for compelling reasons. It is heartening that the Bench accepted my argument that a change of government at the Centre is not a ground for removal of the Governor. A Governor need not be in sync with the ideology of the ruling party. The Court categorically ruled that reasons must exist for a Governors removal and in appropriate cases the Court may examine whether reasons for removal were rational and not arbitrary. The importance of this judgment cannot be overemphasised. Limited judicial review in the matter of removal of Government has been accepted. Hereafter,Governors cannot be treated like political footballs.
