True, Ajmal Kasab was not informed adequately of his rights (“An act of constitutional impropriety,” Nov. 23). But I don’t think that even if Kasab had asked for a review of the rejection of his mercy petition, things would have been very different. The man we are talking about was responsible for taking hundreds of lives. We would do well to understand the pain of the families which lost their near and dear in the 26/11 terror attack. What Kasab got from our country was much more than he deserved. Whatever happened to him was the only option available. The decision could have perhaps been delayed, certainly not changed.
Even assuming the UPA government had political motives in withholding the information from Kasab, what stopped his lawyer from informing him? By giving a patient and fair trial to an enemy, the criminal justice system has done a commendable job. Justice was ensured to all — the victims, martyrs and the convict.
Unless we take bold steps such as hanging Kasab, how can we uproot the thriving network of terrorist organisations and their ideologies? Every step forward matters.
Real life cases cannot be treated like classroom or textbook examples. That is why we often use the term “Law and practice of …” The brutal act in which Kasab was involved was not just against the people of Mumbai but the Indian state. He was tried under various provisions of the IPC and the CrPC in the most judicious way, although there was clear proof of his involvement in 26/11. The constitutional provision (review of mercy plea rejection) should be used when there is evidence of foul play or bias.
Raghavendra A. Choudhari,
While the writer has highlighted Kasab’s case, he has failed to acknowledge that not many countries would have given such a fair trial to a terrorist caught on camera. Ours is a country where judicial trials are expensive and there is a huge backlog to be cleared. Yet we spent enough time and money on Kasab’s trial. The poor in our country run from pillar to post but do not get justice. But we seem to be more concerned about the trial of one who deliberately chose to kill.
If Kasab had to be somehow spared the death penalty, it could have been done with a quirk of convoluted logic that killing per se is wrong, irrespective of the gravity of the crime. One wonders why a President would reject a mercy petition on grounds other than those on which the highest court has awarded the death penalty. Why should the President spell them out again? In any case, did Kasab really care?