Two death sentences and a controversy

The Delhi High Court finally gave justice to Priyadarshini Mattoo in the sensational rape and murder case involving Santosh Singh, son of former cop J.P. Singh. The ruling, a landmark of sorts, overrode the earlier judgment passed by the trial court, in which the judge rather impotently let Singh go free although the judge was convinced that Singh had indeed committed the crime. The trial judge also admonished the investigative authorities and the prosecution for a shoddy job done in the case. The case, which seemed set to go into the cold storage, was revived thanks to the national outrage caused by the acquittal of the accused in the Jessica Lal case. The Mattoo judgment will certainly go a long way in reassuring the nation’s citizens that justice can be given to the victim, albeit rather late and with lots of public pressure and media attention thrown in. Further, the death sentence in itself will ensure that a sense of ‘real’ justice has been delivered for a crime that has been rightly billed as ‘rarest of rare’. But like in any independent judiciary and a democratic setup the guilty has a right to appeal and it is likely that the case may drag on and ultimately knock the doors of the Supreme Court. That said, the very fact that the Delhi High Court has delivered on its job and with the father of deceased finally looking satisfied will go a long way in regaining public support for the pillars of Indian democracy that seemed to have been shaken post the Jessica Lal judgment.

Another death sentence was handed in another high profile case to Mohammed Afzal, the main accused in the dastardly attack on the Indian parliament in 2002. The judgment has had a mixed reaction by the media and the intelligentsia in the country. Many firebrand politicians, leaning to the right or far right of Indian politics, welcomed the judgment and hailed it as a necessary deterrent to any future attacks on democracy and its vital institutions. On the other hand, a mix of social scientists and activists has voiced an opinion against the hanging order. Most notably, Arundhati Roy, the Booker prize-winning novelist and social activist have faulted the Indian justice system and have raised the voice against capital punishment. Observers have also argued on the ‘efficacy’ of capital punishment as many studies have indicated that it does not serve as a deterrent to avoid crimes. While still others argue that will justice not be denied to the families of the braves who fought off the parliament attack. A simplistic answer to a complex argument seems foolhardy. Afzal’s case does fall under the rarest of rare cases and for that he must be hanged. As a nation that is under constant attack from hostile neighbours and victim of the global jihad for years, a strong message needs to be sent out to the world and terror perpetrators that India will not lets its democracy and its institutions be harmed or attacked. More so, many have argued that the ruling will cause great anguish and an uprising in Jammu and Kashmir. The argument is fraught with danger as it amounts to saying that the people of Jammu and Kashmir support the actions of Afzal and hanging him would make him a ‘martyr’. Leaving aside a minority one can reasonably argue that the people of J&K will be only too happy to see such a man go to the gallows in order to help their youth move away from the notion of martyrdom made so infamous by Jihadi propagandists like bin Laden. Martyrdom means dying for one’s country, and not by trying to destroy it.

The controversy surrounding the Afzal hanging aside, the Mattoo and Afzal judgments, though similar in outcome have elucidated a curiously differing response. For Mattoo, a 23-year-old student raped and killed, the death sentence has been received with great relief and a feeling of vindication. As for Afzal, a terrorist who was willing to wage war against the State, the response has been one of doubt and a feeling of victimization for the accused. This when the justice delivery system in both cases was delivered by the same penal code and by the same courts. Then why is it that we doubt once judgment while welcoming the other when the outcome remains the same? One would like to see the same amount of press coverage and outspoken critique of the Mattoo judgment vis-à-vis capital punishments. Will any activist openly come out and oppose Santosh Singh’s death sentence? One thinks not. Is it because the family of the Mattoo’s, Lal’s and Katara’s can get time on air and be pursued by the press while those of the brave men and women who laid down their lives to protect the State are, to put it crudely, not important enough to pursue to make them seek justice?