Opinion Nilam Katara writes: Why I will file a review petition on the verdict in my son’s murder case

In the post-Independence years, the government had broad powers to remit life sentences, which often led to arbitrary reductions. This, at times, could mean complete freedom for a proven murderer in just two years, even after conviction. In the 1970s, 14 years was set as the minimum jail term for a “life sentence”. Ministers and governments could not interfere with this minimum period.

It’s here that Swami Shraddhanand vs State of Karnataka set a precedent. The verdict in that case, in 2008, laid down the possibility of being imprisoned for a period beyond 14 years, without the sentence being commuted by the government. But was this verdict conclusive? Perhaps not. A five-judge bench was constituted after the debate on the life sentence — whether the Centre or state governments could remit a life sentence — that followed former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. Finally, in 2015, in Union of India vs V Sriharan, as the country approached 70 years of independence, 20, 30, or more years of imprisonment became a possibility.

So, a murderer can now be lawfully put behind bars for more than 14 years. But does that still mean that such a convict can walk free without the need for seeking remission from the government? To me, as a citizen, a life sentence seemed to mean a prison term till the end of natural life, and remission was only a matter for the governments to decide, not for the courts.

Whether you might still need someone to fight for justice, if you are murdered, is another matter. And if there will be jaya (victory) in the end is yet another matter. And then there is another concern: If the murderers were also ordered by the court to pay a fine within a certain timeframe, failing which they were to undergo additional imprisonment, would it not matter to your fight for justice if the court ignored this default clause, and allowed the convicts to pay the fine at a later date?

There is also a possibility that a judge who heard one parole application in a high court (HC) and was later elevated as Chief Justice of another HC is now practising as a lawyer in the Supreme Court and representing the convict after retirement. And the bar association of the related HC would be able to do nothing about this arguably unethical choice.

Yes, this is the reality today in 21st-century India. After aiding in the destruction of evidence in the Jessica Lal murder case and murdering Nitish Katara (while out on bail in the Jessica Lal case), the convict was given extended bail during his prison term. And a former Chief Justice is appearing as counsel for the convict whose parole application he had once heard as a judge.

Meanwhile, I am using my right to submit a review petition before the Supreme Court of India — in the name of a republic with a Constitution to deliver justice to its citizens, or in the name of fighting for justice. Yato Dharmastato Jaya. Where there is righteousness, let there be victory.

The writer is the mother of Nitish Katara, who was abducted and murdered in 2002