Prof Davinderpal Singh Bhullar Is No Longer Going To Be Hanged?

[Into the Light]

I've just received information that Prof Davinderpal Singh Bhullar is no longer going to be hanged now?

Is this true?

[JagtarSinghKhalsa]

Have had the same information for several hours. Trying to get written confirmation from some of the key Punjab contacts. Will confirm within 12 hours.

[Into the Light]

I've just received more information that this is no true as the case for Prof Bhullar was supposed to take place today but didn't as the judge was no present today.

From what i understand, today's court case was about giving the supreme court a affidativ but as the judge wasn't present, this did not happen.

Apologies for any confusion caused!

JagtarSinghKhalsa, please keep us all informed of the status of Prof Sahib's case

[JagtarSinghKhalsa]

DEATH IN LIFE The Supreme Court verdict on the petition of death row convict Devender Pal Singh Bhullar could have a significant impact on other death penalty cases in India. Kavitha Shanmugam reports

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT: A demonstration for awarding the death penalty to Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, Afzal Guru and Ajmal Kasab

At a time when the country is waiting to see if Rajiv Gandhi’s killers do get to have their death sentence commuted to life imprisonment, the decision on the fate of another death row prisoner could have a bearing on the whole issue of capital punishment.

The Supreme Court hearing of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar’s last bid petition — slated to take place at the end of the month — is important because his plea for commuting his death sentence to a life sentence rests on the argument that the inordinate delay in deciding his mercy petition was a violation of his fundamental right. In 1993, Bhullar engineered a bomb blast in Delhi that killed nine people. He was sentenced to death in 2001, and the Supreme Court upheld the sentence in 2003. His mercy petition to the President of India, filed the same year, was rejected last May.

If the apex court does decide to commute Bhullar’s sentence on the basis of the delay that took place in deciding on his mercy petition, it could spell hope for Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan — the three men sentenced to death for the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. For they too have approached the courts to have their death sentence commuted to life on the same grounds. Incidentally, the President of India rejected the trio’s mercy petition only last August — 11 years after it was filed. The fate of other death row prisoners such as Afzal Guru, who masterminded the attack on Parliament in 2001, may also be impacted by the Bhullar judgment.

Says T.R. Andhyrujina, Supreme Court advocate and former solicitor general of India, “The death penalty has been constitutionally upheld by the Supreme Court time and again, but it will have to consider the matter of delays in its execution while making a decision.”

However, the verdict in the Bhullar case is significant not just because it will deliberate on whether or not inordinate delays should be sufficient grounds for commuting a death sentence. R. Vaigai, a Chennai advocate who filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court on behalf of Murugan, one of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination, believes that the Bhullar judgment is also important because the petitioner has raised additional issues.

“Bhullar has questioned whether the death penalty can be given in a split verdict among the judges of the bench hearing the case,” reveals Vaigai. “This issue has not been raised before and in that sense, the verdict could set a precedent. It would be good if the Supreme Court does deliver a judgment on the split verdict issue. I strongly feel that when you take away a man’s life, it should be based on an unequivocal decision.”

Capital punishment is, of course, a highly debatable issue, and many legal experts and activists have long demanded that India do away with it. The basic argument for the abolition of death penalty is that it is not a real deterrent for criminals, and that it is often handed out in an arbitrary fashion. As D.R. Karthikeyan, former CBI director who had investigated the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, points out, “In this age of terrorist bombers, death penalty is not a deterrent. It is time Parliament has a debate on the issue.”

Others feel that there is a degree of arbitrariness in awarding the death penalty. Says Mumbai advocate Yug Chowdhary, the legal co-ordinator in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, “There is tremendous arbitrariness and subjectivity in applying the ‘rarest of rare’ formula — that which justifies a death penalty — to murder cases.”

Chennai lawyer D. Nagasaila cites a study from Lethal Lottery, a book published by The Amnesty International India and People’s Union for Civil Liberties PUCL), in which 700 death penalties awarded by the Supreme Court between 1950-2006 were examined. Nagasaila, who drew up a clemency plea on behalf of the PUCL for Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan, says the study shows that the basic tenet of awarding the death penalty in the rarest of rare cases was not always followed.

Needless to say, many judges and legal experts take strong exception to that assertion. Says retired Supreme Court justice V.S. Sirpukar, “The rarest of rare doctrine has been scrupulously followed by us. I have given hundreds of judgments and we carefully weigh everything before giving any judgment.”

Justice Sirpukar was part of the two-member bench that upheld the death sentence of Pakistani national Mohammed Arif alias Ashfaq in the Red Fort attack case in August this year. Lashing out against the pro-abolition lobby, he says angrily, “It has become fashionable for people to speak against capital punishment. The reality is that death penalty is the only deterrent and people are only afraid of death.”

It is left to former Supreme Court judge K.T. Thomas to toe the middle line. Thomas feels that the way forward could be something like the judgment given by Supreme Court Justice Aftab Alam in the Swami Shraddhananda case in July 2008. The prisoner, who was facing the death penalty for burying alive his wife in his backyard, was sentenced to life imprisonment until death. “The Supreme Court evolved a new sentence for murder with that verdict. It is a new approach to capital punishment and I think capital punishment has lost its utility with this judgment,” says Thomas.

The judgment in the Bhullar case could also become a milestone of sorts and to an extent determine how capital punishment evolves in India. Indeed, with so many high profile death penalty cases being heard right now, and the debate over capital punishment itself raging stronger than ever, it could have a significant impact on the way Indian jurisprudence deals with death sentences in the future.

Article above shows the decision has much wider implications, so will not be surprised to learn judge did not turn up today.

[S1ngh]

Such a stupid judicial system.. What they are basically doing is thinking about "What if..." or "what are our options to get away" rather than focusing on truth and justice. They should be making judgement by looking at each 'particular' case by keeping case timeline, evidence and facts in their mind rather than public opinions or emotions... Judicial system should strictly stay away from people emotions.

This proves that court system of India should not be considered as independent non-biased body to make decision swiftly without delay. They are either heavily influenced by politicians or they want to save their seats by pleasing majority of population of India. Even if they do realize that they made mistake by arresting bhullar in 90's, we sure know that they will not admit their mistake at all but will let bhullar bhai sahib rot in jail.

Like in US many prisoners who were falsely accused and jailed for many many years and if court found new evidence or lack of evidence of their acquittal then us court will accept their mistake right away and compensate victim in millions of $.