By M.C. Linthoingambee
The country woke up to an understatement made by the Supreme Court on the infamous assassination plot that took the life of the sixth Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi. There is a big question mark there with the ongoing controversy over the release of those accused in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case. There is strong showdown claim with the Centre and the government body functioning in the State of Tamil Nadu over the wake of this development. Although the State Government of Tamil Nadu decided to free the seven convicts involved in the case: Murugan, Santhan, Perarivalan, Nalini, Robert Payas, Jayakumar and Ravichandran; there has been various oppositions in the matter.
In an excerpt from the Hindu, Chief Justice of India P. Sathasivam observed, “When death is converted to life and remission is granted, authorities have to give special reasons. Our judgment was available at 5 p.m. on the Net on Tuesday. But the Tamil Nadu government took the decision on Wednesday morning. We are not expressing any views. We are not underestimating the powers of the State. We are concerned with the procedural lapses and we will examine it.” In its February 18 judgment, the court said, “Life imprisonment means end of one’s life, subject to any remission granted by the appropriate government under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which, in turn, is subject to procedural checks.” The Centre said it should be examined whether the Centre or the State was the right to grant remission.
The Tamil Nadu Government under the leadership of its Chief Minister Jayalalithaa stayed a decision to commute the reverse of the convicts from the capital punishment of death penalty to life imprisonment wherein question have been raised and begged for their release. Is the right solution that they have to offer? Although happiness overwhelms over those that were convicted, there has been a strong mix of emotions over the people withholding or either opposing to the judgment. The Centre is likely to stand on a strong foot of opposing to the idea of the Tamil Nadu Government. In the first statement made by Rahul Gandhi he remarked in a statement saying that if someone kills the PM and gets away with it than how will the common man get justice. Remarks have also been made that it was not just the PM who was killed on that day but a few others who were just bystanders, being innocent would their families stand by the same judgment? What could have been the right solution in which both parties would have supported the idea?
We can only hope that the Judiciary does an inpromto commitment into determining what is to be finally done as per the principles of natural justice.” Now, why am I putting this up? This news is what hit headlines and it is related to the legal ethics of the country. In addition, it is our duty to know some of the news that determines the faith of the country in deciding how the country keeps in order of its moral and social values. With the Supreme Court offering to stay the decision on the release of the convicts, there has been vehement opposition in referral to the idea still.”
While humanity is still in strive where the accused daughter currently pursuing medicine has aired her desire for the chance to take home her parents (Murugan and Nalini) to London with obvious reasons of asking forgiveness to Mr. Rahul Gandhi in the process of ascertaining that the Centre does stay by the decision which the Tamil Nadu Government so strongly upholds. The grand acquisition is that of a daughter begging to stay and live with her parents for the first time. Will this be a dream come true? Whereas in the middle of the reck, things are not overwhelmingly welcomed with the family members of those killed alongside the deceased Prime Minister staging protest against the decision. They claimed that the Government should look at all people of Tamil Nadu and not only a few.
While polls have been carried on to see if these actions are just political acts to attain more voters. Politics is still proven to be a mind game with no close doors but often locked within the square box. The verdict and politics often go hand in hand in what is seen as the most untaken passage in the history. The Law Ministers Kapil Sibal has laid out that it shall abide by the decision but merely abiding does not stay in agreement.
In such situations, law is best adjunct to dynamism where one can decide the faith of a person either to die or to live; such is a power of God. Nobody should be playing and mandating ground rules. Where there have been various criticisms of the capital punishment rule of death penalty prevalent in our country, one much acknowledge that this carries out in the rarest of the rare cases. The overruling party feels it a rightful decision when such matter occurs other may oppose to the actions, this is the balance which exists in our faith. Theories are very much uncalled for in the decision of the court, one decides on a landmark and it, in turns becomes a precedent. This is the hard and fast rule of countering the act of terrorism or any other acts which cause harm or endanger anybody in regards to living.
(M.C. Linthoingambee is an undergraduate pursuing B.Com. LL.B(H). An avid blogger, poet, a seasonal artist and a foodie, she is also a life member to the Indian Society of the Red Cross.)