How the apex court defines 'rarest of rare'
- Solar scam case: Kerala court orders FIR against CM Oommen Chandy
- Supreme Court recalls order appointing former judge Virendra Singh as UP Lokayukta
- Arunachal Governor cited ‘cow slaughter’ protest as one sign of law & order collapse in state
- BJP leader held for alleged cow slaughter in Madhya Pradesh, gets expelled from party
- Indian-American Muslims flay Government move against AMU, Jamia
Judicial discussions on the parameters for the death penalty have taken centrestage
In August 2005, the Supreme Court awarded the death penalty to Afzal Guru, an accused in the 2001 attack on Parliament, after holding his was a "classic example" of a "rarest of rare" case. It said the "collective conscience of the society" would only be satisfied if the capital punishment was awarded to Guru.
Last year, the apex court handed out the death sentence to Ajmal Kasab, involved in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack, ruling that gallows remained the "only" punishment for the man who had "no feeling of pity and killed without the slightest twinge of conscience". While the verdict in Guru's case did not delve on the "aggravating" and "mitigating" factors — balancing these have been used as a standard to decide whether to award the death penalty — Kasab's judgment duly considered it.
These two cases could be similar in view of the fact that they related to terrorism, but the fact remains that law mandates punishment only in accordance with crimes and their punishments under the IPC. So, the cases of Guru and Kasab are no different from any other case in terms of charges of murder, waging war against country, sedition, etc. Several recent SC judgments have, however, advocated a re-examination of the parameters that decide which crimes qualify for the awarding of capital punishment under the "rarest of rare" criterion. Judicial discussions on conclusive parameters for the death sentence have taken centrestage, and several judgments expressing what constitutes the "rarest of rare" are being delivered.
The first such judgment came in November 2012, when Justice Madan B. Lokur, authoring a verdict in a murder case regretted that the sentencing has become "judge-centric", rather than based on the principles of sentencing that require considering crime and criminal equally important. He pointed out that the courts continue to focus only on the severity of the crime, while ignoring other circumstances relating to the criminal.
- Dalit scholar’s death exposed inability of casteist Hindu to be modern
- Annotated edition of Hitler's Mein Kemph
- Why yuan matters Indian equity markets
- R-day and the saccharine sweet patriotism
- It is clear PM’s concept of nationhood extends beyond constitutional parameters
- The sensitive and old controversy about the minority character of AMU