Senseless Sense of Time

(By V. Mohammed Rafeeq, Advocate, Perinthalmanna)

The unjust time schedule of the judicial functioning at the lower judiciary require a revamp for many reasons as present working hours of the court is 11 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. in the morning session and 2.30 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. in the evening session. A change as recommended will not reduce the total working hours as it starts at 8 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. Here there is a break for 30 minutes starting from 10.30 to 11 a.m. for refreshments. Total working hours being five hours in both cases. The persuasive arguments sound reasonable as it affects all four limbs as enunciated here under:-

2.   The  Criminal  Rules  of  Practice  Kerala,  1982 

(Date of commencement 1.1.1984 as per notification No. D1-27547/80 dated 10.10.1984 - High Court of Kerala appoints 1.11.1984 as the rules shall come into force)

R. (5) Hours  of  Sitting :-

(1) The Courts shall ordinarily sit from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. with an interval not exceeding one hour.

(2) No cases shall be heard and no judicial act shall be formally announced or done on a holiday save in case of absolute urgency.

(3) Nothing in sub-section (2) shall affect jurisdiction of Magistrate to authorize detention of an accused person under sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code or to deal with a lunatic in accordance with provisions of Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 (Act 4 of 1912) or to record a dying declaration when required to do so by a competent authority or to release an accused from custody.

3.  The  Civil  Rules  of  Practice  Kerala,  1971

(The Rules came into force on 1.10.1971 as per Notification No. D1-7158/70 dated 5th August 1971 published in K.G. No. 36, dated 14.9.1971.)

R(9).  Sitting  of  Courts

1. The court shall ordinarily sit from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. with a break not exceeding an hour.

2.  No case shall be heard and no judicial act shall be formally announced or done on a holiday. Save in exceptional circumstances of which a full report shall be made to the High Court. 

4.  Judicial  Officers

Relaxed thoughts bring active involvement in Court proceedings as the judicial officers gets more time in the afternoon session. They need not redress the robes to put up appearance on the same day. The dictation, ministerial matters can be done in the afternoon session with free mind. The ideal officers can have a real rest of mind in hot summer with cats nap to re-boot with great freshness.

5.  Lawyers

(i) Legal profession has undergone drastic changes from adversarial to facilitation agents. Consultancy is a major area for an efficient lawyer; in the present work schedule he is restrained from appearing in court unless effective appearance is required. It often makes him running between the court room and office, forcing clerks to follow up the turn of the case, which lead to a representation before the court to ‘pass over’ the case on more than once occasions as the lawyer will be at office when the case is called and he sets off to the court only when hearing of the case is ensured. Ultimately the situation strains the judicial officer, to deal with the same case more than once. Significantly lawyer looses the nuances and subtleties of the court by absenting from the court. The proposed change will resolve the matter either to appear in court or not. The globalization has opened new vistas in the corporate world, young professionals can spend a few hours in said area for adequate remuneration and they can strategize time in the afternoon for the profession. After initial exercise they may lead to full fledged professional in either field.

(ii). A legal professional's main stay is his research inclination, instant dependence of legal software though a boon compared to his elder generation lawyers. They can step into the library with ease as the court proceedings are over by lunch. The true professional can allocate time till 8 p.m. for consultation. They can rearrange the appointments from 6 to 8 p.m. Under the present schedule of work, a committed lawyer returns to his office to turn the pages of a plaint, or final report after conclusion of strenuous trial till 5 p.m. on a working day. Apart from this lawyers have inclination for public life which compete with their professional life. The recommended time schedule will afford sufficient chance in this area. Lawyer will have natural choice during the run of time. On the personal side of a lawyers personal work is not possible under the present schedule as the working hours of any office is against it,   to obtain the birth certificate of child from local body or to pay electricity bill, call on a patient in a hospital at normal time. The psyche of the lawyer is also against such attempts during the working hours.

6. Clerks

On the side of the clerks the access to diaries and judicial notes of the daily proceedings copying from the same are delayed often non-available as the court functions till 5 p.m. Under the recommended schedule this handicap is cured as afternoon session is designed for administrative works. At lower level in trial courts clerks are information providers regarding the stage and nature of the case, correct information improve the efficiency of the lawyer to make effective representation before the court which ultimately benefits the system. On the work side also they are not tailed-behind a lawyer the whole day. The preparation of necessary petitions and drafting are done during the afternoon with an advantage of time.

7. On the customers side the thought of a court involves memories of monotonomy. Unerringly in most cases a date is struck off from a person’s life if he is summoned for a day in any case. We console ourselves arguing that without a committed client no case will have a logical conclusion but one or two such briefs will swallow the entire day of a Court. Under the recommend schedule a client reserves his right to use half of a day for his personal work; wasting half of a day has different degree of impact on a client and his frustration.

Indian tradition stands for early wake up, in Kerala day break is at 5 a.m. and day light is spread at around 5.30 to 6 p.m. invariably. The customers of the system have got sufficient time gap of two hours to travel and to put up appearance before the court as we had to visualize a reasonable distance to the court. The night life is a colonial luxury we are carrying. A sense of justice pleads for a rescheduling of time of the working hours of the court.

h[-in-£bv¡v ac-W-aWn apg§ntÃ?

(By AUz : A\n sF¡c, tIm«bw) 

“FÃm hnip-²À¡pw Hcp `qXImehpw FÃm ]m]n-IÄ¡pw Hcp `mhnIme-hp-apIv. Hcm-fnse Ipä-hm-k-\-bpsS t]cn Abmsf FgpXn Xf-fp-hm³ ]mSn-Ã. ]Icw AbmÄ t]dn-bn-cn-¡p¶ A]-I-S-I-c-amb B A]-N-bs¯ \o¡w sN¿p-I-bmWv thIXv “Pohn-X-ap-bÀ¯p-¶-Xm-hWw \nbaw. am\-hn-I-X-bv¡p-X-Ip-¶-Xm-IWw \oXn-kmcw”.

-- --PÌokvv hn.-BÀ. IrjvW-¿À.1

1967-þse ap¸-¯-©m-aXv tem I½o-j³ dnt¸mÀ«v C´-y³ in£m \nb-a-¯n h[-in-£-bpsS A\n-hm-c-y-Xsb kqNn-¸n-¨p-sIm-ImWv kaÀ¸n-¡-s¸-«-Xv. C´-y-bnse {]tX-yI kml-N-c-y-¯nÂ, hy-Xn-cn-à-amb kmaq-lnI Xe-¯n-ep-ff P\-X-bp-sS-bn-S-bnÂ, `q{]-tZ-i-¯nsâ hnkvXrXn IW-¡n-se-Sp¯v, P\-kw-J-y-bpsS hym-]vXnbpw hnim-e-Xbpw t\m¡n, \nb-ahpw kam-[m-\hpw \ne-\nÀ¯pI F¶ `mcn-¨Xpw {]m[m-\-y-ap-f-f-Xp-amb Bh-iyw ap³\nÀ¯p-t¼mÄ C¶s¯ kml-N-c-y-¯n C´-y-bn h[-in£ \nÀ¯-em-¡p-¶-Xnsâ k½À±w ]co-£n-¡m-\m-hp-¶-X-à (35-mw tem I½o-j³dnt¸mÀ«v, C´-y³ in£m \nbaw, t]Pv 69-þ1967.) F¶m-bn-cp¶p tem I½o-j³ \mec Zim-_vZ-§Ä¡v ap³]v A`n-{]m-b-s¸-«-Xv. AXn\ptij-ap-ff C´-y³ kml-N-cyw amdntbm F¶ Imcyw ]n¶oSv ]T-\-hn-j-b-am-bn-«n-Ã-sb-¦nepw \ne-hn-ep-ff BtKmf kml-N-c-y-§Ä ]cn-tim-[n-¡p-t¼mÄ h[in-£¡v ac-W-aWn apg-§p-hm³ ka-b-ambn F¶pthWw a\-Ên-em-¡p-hm³. 

]pcm-X\ C´-y-bnse ‘BX-Xmbn’(‘BXXm-bn-\-am-bm´w l\-y-tZhm hnNm-c-tbXv’a\p: VIII:350 (]Xn-aq¶p Xcw BX-Xm-bn-I-fpIv, Chsc sImÃp-¶Xp-sImIv tZmj-sam-¶p-apIm-In-Ã)) (A{Ian)-Isf h[n-¡m-sa¶ a\p-kvar-Xn-bn \n¶v C´y C¶v F¯n-t¨À¶n-cn-¡p¶ B[p-\nI \nba kwhn-[m-\-¯nepw Cu ITn-\- in£ \ne-\n¡p¶p F¶Xv ]ucm-WnI Ncn-{X-¯nsâ XpSÀ¨ Xs¶. kp{]ow tImS-Xn-bpsS hn[n- {]-kvXm-h--§Ä¡v hnt[-b-amb sNdnb Xcw Xncn-hp-I-f-ÃmsX h[-in£ C´-y³ in£m\nb-a-¯n \n¶pw aäp Nne \nb-a-§-fn \n¶p \o¡w sN¿-s¸-«n-«n-Ã. IqSmsX Gähpw ]pXp-Xmbn 2013 G{]n aq¶n\v \S-¸n hcp-¯nb {Inan-\ \nba t`Z-K-Xn-bn Kpcp-X-c-ambn apdn-th¸n-¡p¶ _em-ÕwK Ipä-hm-fnsb Xq¡n-te-äm-sa¶v kÀ¡mÀ \nbaw \nÀ½n-¡p-Ibpw sNbvXn-cn-¡p-¶p({Inan-\Â\nba t`Z-KXn, 2013, hIp¸v 376 (Pn).)_. 

h[-in-£-bpsS Imc-y-¯n `mcXw a\p-j-ym-h-Imi {]iv\-§-sfm¶pw ]cn-K-Wn-¡p-¶nà Fs¶mcp Btcm-]Ww ]e a\p-j-ym-h-Imi {]hÀ¯-Icpw D¶-bn-¡p-¶p-Iv. F¶m A´m-cmjv{S a\p-j-ym-h-Imi {]J-ym-]-\-¯nsâ BÀ«n-¡nÄ 30-þ a\p-j-ym-h-Imiw \in-¸n-¡p-¶-hÀ¡v a\p-j-ym-h-Im-i-§Ä _m[-I-aà (UDHR-Section 30- ‘Nothing in UDHR implies to engage in any activity aimed at the distinction of these rights.) F¶v tcJ-s¸-Sp-¯n-bn-«p-f-f-XmWv C´-ysb t]mep-ff Nne cmP-y-§Ä C¶pw h[-in£ \ne-\nÀ¯p-¶-Xn-\-Sn-Øm-\-ambn NqIn-¡m-«p-¶-Xv. 

Bw\Ìn CâÀ\m-j-W-ensâ dnt¸mÀ«-\p-k-cn¨v (Amenesty International: h[-in£tNmZ-yhpw D¯c-§fpw: Al Index, Act 51/002/2007 April.) 131 temI-cm-jv{S-§-fn h[-in£ Hgn-hm-¡n-¡-gn-ªp. 66 temI cmjv{S-§Ä h[-in£ H-gn-hm¡p-hm³ aSn¨v \n¡p-I-bm-Wv. C´y AXnÂs]Sp¶ Hcp cmjv{S-am-Wv. F¶m C¯cw cmPy§fpsS CS-bnÂXs¶ XS-hp-Imsc Xq¡n sImÃp¶hcpsS F®-¯nsâ Imc-y-¯n hmÀjnI icm-icn Ipd-hm-bn-«pIv. 

CXn-\À°w A´m-cmjv{S \oXn-\-ym-b-cwKw h[-in£ \nÀ¯-em-¡p-¶-hsc A\p-Iq-en-¡p-¶pI-v F¶v Xs¶-bm-Wv. h[-in£ Ipä-Ir-X-y-§Ä Ipd-bv¡p-hm³ klm-bn-¡p-¶nà F¶Xpw asämcp ]T\ ^e-ambn a\-Ên-em-¡n-bn-«pIv. h[-in£ \nÀ¯-em-¡n-b-t¸mÄ sIme-¡p-ä-¯nsâ F®w Ipd-hmb Ncn-{X-amWv Im\-Usb kw_-Ôn¨ Bw\-Ìn-bpsS dnt¸mÀ«n ImWp-¶-Xv. DZm-l-c-W-¯n\v Im\-U-bn ]Xn-\m-bncw P\§-fp-sSbnSbn icm-icn sIm-e]m-X-I-\n-c¡v h[-in£ \nÀ¯-em-¡p-¶Xnsâ sXm«v XtehÀjw 309 Bbn-cp-¶p. 1976-þ h[-in£ \nÀ¯-em-¡nb Im\-Ubn 1980 Bb-t¸m-tg¡v sIme-¡p-ä-§-fpsS icm-icn ]Xn-\m-bncw P\-§Ä¡v 2.41 Bbn Ipd-ªp. 2003-þ h[-in£ \nÀ¯-em-¡n-b-Xn\v 27 hÀj-§Ä¡v tijw ]Xn-\m-bncw P\-§Ä¡n-S-bn 1.73 Bbn hoIpw Ipd-bp-I-bm-Wp-Im-b-Xv. 2005-þ AXv 2 Bbn DbÀ¶p-sh-¦nepw h[-in£ DIm-bn-cp¶ Ah-Ø-bn-te-Xn-t\-¡mÄ Ipdhv Xs¶ (Amntesty International : The Death penalty; Questions and Answers. – do-). ac-W-in£ ]cn-l-cn-¡m-\m-hm¯ sXänsâ kµn-Kv²X t]dp¶p F¶mWv temd³kv Imävkv (Lawrence Katz- ‘Prison Conditions, Capital Punishment and Deterrence.’) A`n-{]m-b-s¸-«-Xv.

AXp-sIm-ImWv A´m-cmjv{S Icm-dp-I-fnepw {]J-ym-]-\-§-fnepw t{]mt«m-t¡m-fp-I-fnepw h[-in£ Hgn-hm-¡-s¸-Sp-Ibpw a\p-jy PohnXw am\-y-ambn kwc-£n-¡-s¸-Sp-Ibpw thW-sa¶ Nn´m-K-Xn¡v {]map-JyapIm--b-Xv. C´y CtX-hsc Cu hnj-b-¯n Hcp \nb-X-amb ]T\w ASp¯ Ime-s¯m¶pw \S-¯n-bn-«n-Ã. F¶m PÌokvv hn.-BÀ. IrjvW-¿-cpÄs¸-sS-bp-ff hnhn[ \nba X{´-Ú-·m-cpsS hn[n {]kvXm-h-§-fn-eqsS h[-in£bpsS BbpÊv C´-y-bn Npcp-¡n-s¡mIv h¶n-cp-¶-Xm-Wv. 2013-þse {Inan-\ \nba t`Z-KXn h[-in-£sb C¶pw kÀ¡mÀ \oXn-I-cn-¡p¶p F¶v hy-à-am-¡n-¡-gn-ªp.

C´y H¸v h¨v I£n-bm-bn-«p-ff CâÀ\m-j-W Ih-\âv t^mÀ knhn Bâv s]mfn-än-¡Â ssdävknsâ (sF.-kn.-kn.-]n.-BÀ) Bdm-as¯ BÀ«n-¡n-fn-emWv h[-in£ hne-¡n-s¡m-Ip-ff A´m-cmjv{S \nbaw {]J-ym-]n-¨n-«p-f-f-Xv (Section 6 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1982). BÀ«n-¡n-fnsâ \memw D]-h-Ip-¸n h[-in£ hn[n-¡-s¸« FÃm-hÀ¡pw s]mXp-am-¸v, Zb, eLq-I-cWw F¶n-h-bv¡p-ff AÀl-X-bp-sI¶pw \nÀt±-i-apIv. IqSmsX ]Xn-s\«v hb-Ên\p Xmsg-bp-f-f-h-tctbm, KÀ`nWn Bb kv{Xotbtbm h[-in-£bv¡v hnt[-b-cm-¡-cp-sX¶pw kqNn-¸n-¡p-¶p. FÃm cmjv{S-§fpw Cu \nÀt±-i-§Ä Ime-Xm-akw IqSmsX \S-¸m-¡-W-sa¶pw CXn \njvIÀjn-¡p-¶p-Iv. 

ap¸¯©m-aXv \nba I½o-j³ h[-in-£sb \ne-\nÀ¯p¶-Xn-\p-ff kml-N-c-y-§Ä dnt¸mÀ«v sNbvXXv 1967-þ-em-Wv. A¶p-Im-bn-cp¶ C´-y³ kml-N-c-y-§Ä C¶p-f-fXp t]mse Bbn-cp-¶n-Ã. h[-in-£-bpsS Imc-y-¯n ]pXn-sbmcp tem I½o-js\ \ntbm-Kn-t¡-IXv A\n-hm-c-y-am-bn-cn-¡p-¶p. acWw sImIv Hcm-fnse \·-tbbpw IqSn sImÃp¶p F¶ Nn´m-K-Xn-bpsS ASn-Øm-\-¯n PÌokv hn.-BÀ. IrjvW-¿À Xsâ hn[n-{]-kvXm-h-§-fn-eq-sSbpw hn{ia PohnX Ime-L-«-¯nepw \ÂInb ktµ-i-§Ä h[-in-£sb kw_-Ôn¨v ap³\n-c-bn \n¡p¶ hmZ-ap-J-§-fm-Wv. C´-y³ kml-N-cyw F¶v {]tX-yI taJe h[-in£ \ne-\nÀ¯n-s¡mIv ]cn-K-Wn-¡p-¶-Xn AÀ°-an-sÃ-¶mWv a\p-jy kvt\ln-I-fpsS \ne-]m-Sv. h[-in-£-bpsS Ncn{Xw C´-y³ \oXn-\ymb hy-h-Øn-Xn-bn-eqsS ]cn-tim-[n-¡p-t¼mÄ hy-à-am-¡p-¶Xv D¶X \oXn-]o-T-§Ä h[-in£\ne-\nÀ¯p-¶-Xn-s\ kw_-Ôn¨v hnap-JX ]peÀ¯-W-sa¶v Xs¶-bm-Wv. F¶m CXv \S-¸n hcp-t¯I kml-N-c-y-§-fn ]c-tam-¶X \oXn ]oThpw cmjv{S-]-Xn-bpsS A[n-Im-c-§fpw hogvN hcp-¯p-¶p-Iv F¶-Xnsâ ]cn-WnX ^e-amWv, Hcm-fnse Xn·-bpsS Awi-§-tfm-sSm¸w B hy-àn-bnse \·-Isf IqSn Hcn-¡epw Xncn¨v sImIp hcm-\m-h¯ hn[w \jvS-s¸-Sp-¯p-¶-Xv. 

A´m-cmjvv{S \ne-]m-Sp-IÄ

1948-þse bqWn-th-gvk Un¢-td-j³ Hm^v lyq-a³ ssdävkv (bp.Un.-F-¨v.-BÀ) BWv Pohn-¡p-hm-\p-ff a\p-j-ysâ Ah-Imiw BZ-y-ambn A´m-cmjv{S thZn-bn-se-¯n-¨-Xv. A´mcmjv{S a\p-j-ym-h-Imi {]J-ym-]-\-¯nsâ (Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): 1948 – Articles 3 & 5.) BÀ«n-¡nÄ A©n Bscbpw {Iqchpw a\p-j-y-Xzcln-Xhpw Ah-a-Xn-¡p-¶-Xp-amb ]oV-\-§Ät¡m ]cn-N-c-W-§Ät¡m in£IÄt¡m hnt[-b-am-¡-cpXv F¶ \nÀt±iw h[-in-£bv¡v FXn-cmb \nÀt±-i-amWv F¶v h-[-in-£sb FXnÀ¡p-¶-hÀ D¶-bn-¡p-¶p. h[-in-£sb, XpSÀ¶v Hgn-hm-¡p-hm-\p-ff aäv bmsXm¶pw A´m-cmjv{S a\p-j-ym-h-Imi {]J-ym-]-\-§-fn-sÃ-¦nepw in£-I-fpsS a\p-j-y-Xzcmln-Xyw F¶ ]Zw h[in£-s¡-Xn-cmb BZy Nph-Sp-h-bv]mbn ImWp-¶-h-cpIv. PohnXw \ne-\nÀ¯p-hm-\p-ff kp{]-[m\ a\p-jymh-ImiamWv Cu \nÀt±-i-s¯-¯p-SÀ¶v `mc-X- -`c-W-L-S-\-bnse auen-Im-h-Im-i-§-fn H¶mbn 21-þmw A\p-tO-Z-¯n tNÀ¯n-«p-f-fXv (Constitution of India Article 21-Right to Life.). 

h[-in£ \S-¸m-¡p-t¼mÄ AXn-I-Tn-\-amb thZ-\-Ifpw hnj-a-X-Ifpw A\p-`hn¡p¶ a\p-jy ico-c-s¯-¸än Nn´n-¡-W-sa-¶Xpw Ch-bn-ÃmsXbpff acWw \ÂIp-hm³ km[n-¡m-¯Xp sImIv ac-W-in£ \ÂIp-hm³ ]mSn-sÃ-¶p-amWv saIvkn-¡³ tem kvIqfnse \nba hnZ-Kv²-\mb Zho-µÀ kn±p An-{]m-b-s¸-«-Xv {it²-b-amWv (On appeal; Reviewing Eight Arguments against Capital Punishment; 2009.) . ac-W-in£ am{X-ambn Hcp Ipä-hm-fn¡pw \ÂIp-hm-\m-hn-Ã. AXnsâ A\nÀÆ-N-\o-b-amb thZ\ Hcp in£m hn[n-bnepw Dt±-in-¡p-¶panÃ. thZ-\-bn-ÃmsX F§s\ h[-in£ \S-¸m-¡p-hm-\mWv? CXv {]mIr-Xhpw {Iqc-hp-amb in£m hn[n-bm-Wv. AXp-sImIv Xs¶ A´m-cmjv{S a\p-j-ym-h-Imi {]J-ym-]-\-¯n\v FXn-cm-Wv. 

XpSÀ¶v BtKmf Xe-¯n h[-in-£-s¡-Xn-cmb hmZ-K-Xn-IÄ Øm\w ]nSn-¨Xv 1966-þse CâÀ\m-j-W Ih-\âv Hm¬ knhn Bâv s]mfn-än-¡Â ssdävkv (sF.-kn.-kn.-]n.-BÀ) AwKo-I-cn-¡-s¸-«-tXm-sS-bm-Wv. temI cmP-y-§Ä \nba \nÀ½mWw \S-¯p-t¼mÄ ]n´p-S-tcI amXr-I-bmWv Cu A´m-cmjv{S amÀ¤ \nÀt±-iw. Cu Ih-\ânsâ Bdmw BÀ«n-¡n-fn Pohn-¡m-\p-ff Ah-Imiw \ntj-[n-¡-cp-sX¶v \nÀt±-in-¨n-«p-f-f-Xn-t\m-sSm¸w h[-in£ Hgn-hm-¡n-bn-«nÃm¯ cmP-y-§Ä C¯cw in£m-hn-[n-Isf D¶X tImSXn hn[n-I-fpsS ASn-Øm-\-¯n A]qÀÆ-ambpw Gähpw Kuc-h-ap-ff Ipä-Ir-X-y-§-fn am{X-ambpw \S-¸m-¡-W-sa¶v tcJ-s¸-Sp-¯n-bn-«pIv (Section 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.).

CXn\v tijw 1989-þse sFI-y-cm-jv{S-k`--bpsS cIm-aXv Hm]vj-W t{]mt«m-t¡mÄ AXnsâ Bap-J-¯n C{]-Imcw ]d-bp-¶p. h[-in£ CÃm-Xm-¡p-¶Xv a\p-j-ym-h-Im-i-§-fpsS kp{]-[m\ ]ptcm-K-Xn-bmWv Im«p-¶Xv. “h[-in£ Hgn-hm-¡p-¶-Xn-\p-ff FÃm \S-]-Sn-Ifpw Pohn-Xm-h-Im-i-¯nsâ ]qÀ®-amb hnIm-k-¯nsâ t]cn ]cn-K-Wn-¡-t¸-tS-I-Xm-Wv”(1989, UN Document No. A/44/49, G.A. Resolution 44/128.)bqtdm-]y³ I¬sh³j³ t^mÀ s{]m«-£³ Hm^v lyq-a³ ssdävkv Bâv ^I-saâ {^oUw 1982-þ AwKo-I-cn¨ t{]mt«m-t¡mÄ h[-in-£-s¡-Xn-cmbn ià-amb `mj-bmWv D]-tbm-Kn-¨n-«p-f-f-Xvv (Protocol No.6 of Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; available at http;//conventions coe. Int/treaty.). 1990-þse HmÀK-ss\-tk-j³ t^mÀ Ata-cn-¡³ tÌävknsâ P\-d Akw»n AwKo-I-cn¨ t{]mt«mt¡mfpw (American Convention on Human Rights, November 22, 1969 Article 4 & 2-6) kam-[m\ ka-b¯v h[-in£ d±m-¡-W-sa¶v Bh-i-y-s¸-«n-«pIv. bp²-Im-e¯v h[-in£ AwKo-I-cn-¨n-«p-IqSn Ata-cn-¡³ sFI-y\mSpIÄ Cu t{]mt«m-t¡mÄ AwKo-I-cn-¨n-«nà F¶Xv asämcp hkvXp-X-bmWv. ]Xn-s\«v hb-Ên Xmsg-bp-ff Pph-ss\ Ipä-hm-fn-Isf hnSp-X sN¿p-¶Xv ]c-am-h[n ]cn-K-Wn¨v sImIv h[-in-£bpw Poh-]-c-y-´hpw Hgn-hm-¡-W-sa¶v sFI-y-cm-jv{S-k-`-bpsS I¬sh³j³ Hm^v ssNÂUv ssdävkv tcJ-s¸-Sp-¯p-¶p. (Article 37, Convention on the Rights of Child; U.N.G.A.O.R., 44th Sessions, November 1989)

C§-s\-bp-ff hnhn[ cmP-y-§-fp-sSbpw cmP-ym-´c kwL-S-\-I-fp-sSbpw Xocp-am-\-§fpw AwKo-I-mc-§fpw GtIm-]n-¸n¨p-sImIv sFI-y-cm-jv{S-k-`-bpsS P\-d AÊw»n 2007-þ Hcp {]tabw ]mÊm-¡n. (Moratorium on the use of Death Penalty, UN General Assembly, 63rd Session - Resolution) FÃm cmP-y-§fpw h[-in£ \S-¸m-¡p-¶-Xn\v samd-t«m-dnbw {]J-ym-]n-¡-W-sa-¶m-bn-cp¶p {]ta-b-¯nse Bh-i-yw. \qän A©v cmjv{S-§Ä {]ta-bs¯ A\p-Iq-en-¨-t¸mÄ C´y DÄs¸sS \mÂ]¯n F«v cmP-y-§Ä FXnÀ¯v thm«v sN¿p-I-bmWv DIm-b-Xv. 2010-þ CXp kw_-Ôn¨ aq¶m-as¯ {]tabw hoIpw ]cn-K-W-\bv¡v h¶-t¸mÄ Bw\Ìn CâÀ\m-j-W-ensâ dnt¸mÀ«v (Act No. 51/0005/2010 of 11th Nov. 2010-www.amnesty.org.) {]Imcw \qän-b©v cmP-y-§Ä A\p-Iq-en-¡p-Ibpw ap¸-¯n-sb«v cmP-y-§Ä FXnÀ¡p-Ibpw ap¸-¯n-bmdv cmjv{S-§Ä A`n-{]m-b-an-ÃmsX amdn \n¡p-I-bp-am-bn-cp-¶p. Npcp-¡-¯n thms«-Sp-¸n ]s¦-Sp¯ 181 temI-cm-P-y-§-fn 38 cmP-y-§-fpsS FXnÀ¸v am{X-amWv h[-in£ \nÀ¯-em-¡p-¶-Xn\v XS-Ê-am-bn-«p-f-f-Xv. AXn C´-ybpw s]Sp-¶p. A´m-cmjv{S s]mXp-hn-Im-c-§Äs¡m-¸-aà C´-y-bpsS A´m-cm-jv{S-cw-Ks¯ h[-in-£sbkw_-Ôn¨ \ne-]mSv F¦nepw C´-y-bnse \oXn-\-ymb kwhn-[m\w h[-in-£-s¡-Xn-cmb BtKmf hnIm-cs¯ ]qÀ®-ambpw Ah-K-Wn-¨n-Ã. kp{]ow tImSXn ASp-¯-Im-e-¯mbn h[-in-£sb ]cn-jvI-cn-¡p-hm³ {ia-§Ä \S-¯p-¶p-Iv. Imc-y-§Ä C{X-sbms¡ Bb-t¸mgpw C´-y-bpsS \nba I½o-j³ D]m-[-y-£-\m-bn-cp¶ PÌokv.F³.Fw L«m-sS-bpsS ]T-\-¯n h[-in£ \S-¸m-¡p-¶-Xn\v Ah-km\w IsI-¯nb ‘henb Xc-t¡-Sn-Ãm¯’aq¶p amÀ¤-§Ä Xq¡n sImÃpI, shSn-sh¨v sImÃpI, hnjw Ip¯n sh¨v sImÃpI F¶n-h-bm-bn-cp-¶p. 

Ch-bvs¡ms¡ CS-bn-emWv 1973 hsc \ne-hn-ep-Im-bn-cp¶ h[-in-£-tbm-Sp-ff A\p-Iq-e\w kp{]ow tImS-Xn-bn tNmZyw sN¿-s¸-«-Xv. PKv³taml³kn§v þ D¯À{]-tZiv kÀ¡mÀ (AIR (All India Reporter) 1973 SC 947: Jaganmohan Singh v.State of U.P.) F¶ tIkn PÌokv ]te-¡À BWv h[-in£ `mcX `c-W-L-S-\-bnse BÀ«n-¡nÄ ]s¯m³]-Xn ]d-bp¶ A`n-{]mb kzm-X-{´-y-¯nsâbpw Ccp-]¯n H¶n ]d-bp¶ Pohn-¡m-\p-ff Ah-Im-i-¯ntâbpw ]Xn-\memw A\p-tO-Z-¯nse Xpey kml-N-c-y-¯n Xpey Ah-k-c¯ntâbpw ewL-\-am-sW¶ hmZw ]cn-tim-[n¨v Xf-fn-¡-f-ª-Xv. `mcX `c-W-L-S-\bpw in£m-\n-b-a-§fpw \nb-am-\p-kr-X-amb in£-I-fn H¶mbn h[-in-£sb Icp-Xp-¶pIv F¶m-bn-cp¶p Cu tIknse hn[n \ym-b-¯nse A`n-{]m-bw. 

kp{]ow tImSXn C{]-Im-c-samcp Xocp-am-\-¯n F¯n-t¨À¶ kml-N-c-y-¯n Hcp ]p\ÀhnNn-´\w Akm-²-y-am-Ip-am-bn-cp¶ L«-¯n-emWv Hcp sImÃ-¯n-\Iw Cu hn[nsb d±m-¡n-s¡mIv --PÌokvv hn.-BÀ. IrjvW-¿À h[-in-£-bpsS Imc-y-¯n hn¹-h-I-c-ambn CS-s]-«-Xv. 1974-þse FUnK A¶½ þ B{Ô-{]-tZiv kÀ¡mÀ (BßIY :þPÌokv hn.-BÀ. IrjvW-¿À, A²ymbw 19, t]Pv 213.) F¶ tIkn-em-bn-cp¶p AXp-hsc DIm-bn-cp¶ [mc-W-Isf hgn-Xn-cn¨v hnSp¶ hn[n-\-ymbw ]pd-s¸-Sp-hn-¨-Xv. h[-in£ CÃm-Xm-¡p-¶-Xn-\p-ff ]cn-{i-a-¯nsâ Imc-y-¯n C´-y-bnse ap³\nc \ym-bm-[n-]-\mbn PÌokvv hn.-BÀ. IrjvW-¿À amdn-b-Xv Cu tIknse hn[n-{]-kvXm-h-¯n-eq-sS-bm-Wv. sNbvX Ipäw am{X-aÃ, Ipä-hm-fnbpsS {]mbw, enwKw, kmaq-lnI km¼-¯nIkml-N-c-y-§Ä, am\-knIk½À±-§Ä F¶nh IqSn IW-¡n-se-Sp¯p thWw in£ \nÀ®-bn-t¡-IXv F¶v PÌokvvhn.-BÀ. IrjvW-¿À \nÀt±-in-¨p. Ncn{Xw, am\h kwkvIm-cs¯ `oI-c-hm-Z-§-fn \n¶v am\-hn-I-X-bn-tebv¡v ]cn-hÀ¯\w sN¿p-I-bmWv F¶-Xn-\m h[-in£ AXn-s\mcp Xncn-¨-Sn-bm-h-cpXv F¶ ZoÀL-ho-£-W-]qÀÆ-ap-ff A`n-{]m-bhpw At±lw tcJ-s¸-Sp-¯n. 

FUnK A¶-½-bpsS tIkn A\-kqb F¶p t]cp-ff Hcp kv{Xotbbpw Ipªn-t\bpw sIme-s¸-Sp-¯nb Ipä-¯n-\mWv A¶-½bv¡v h[-in£ \ÂIn-b-Xv. A¶-½-bpsS Imap-I-\m-bn-cp¶ hn`m-c-y-\mb Hcp CSb bphm-hn\v A\-kq-b-bp-ambn ASp-¸-ap-sI¶pw _Ôw ]peÀ¯p-¶p-sh-¶p-ap-ff IsI¯-emWv A¶-½sb Cu IrX-y-¯n\v t{]cn-¸n-¨-Xv. kao-]s¯ Ipän-¡m-«n \n¶v e`n¨ PUw A¶-½-bp-tS-sX¶v kwi-bn-¡p¶ hn[w `wKn-bmbn IrXyw \nÀh-ln-¡p-Ibpw sNbvXp. C{Xbpw \njvTq-c-Ir-X-y-am-bn-cp-¶n«p IqSn FUnK A¶-½bv¡v \ÂInb h[-in£ PÌnkv hn.-BÀ.IrjvW-¿À Poh-]-c-y-´-ambn Ipdhp sN¿p-I-bm-Wp-Im-b-Xv. A¶s¯ No^v PÌokv Fw.-F³.td t]mepw Cu \S-]-Sn-bn `c-W-L-S\m hncp-²X DtIm-sb¶v kwibw {]I-Sn-¸n-¨-Xmbn PÌnkv. hn.-BÀ.IrjvW-¿À Xsâ Bß-IY (BßIY PÌo-kv. hn.-BÀ. IrjvW-¿À, A²-ymbw 19, t]Pv 213.) bn kqNn-¸n-¡p-¶pIv. ]n¶oSv `c-W-L-S\m s_©v Cu hn[n d±m-¡n. h[-in-£-bmWv sIme-]m-X-I-¯n-\p-ff D¯-a-in£sb¶v AXp-hsc DIm-bn-cp¶ k¦Â]w Xncp-¯n-¡p-dn¨v h[-in£ hn[n-¡p-¶-Xn\v {]tX-yI kml-N-c-y-§Ä \njvIÀjn¨v XpS-§nb hn[n-bm-bn-cp-¶p, PÌokvv hn.-BÀ.IrjvW-¿cptS-Xv. Ct¸mÄ hn{i-a-Po-hnXw \bn-¡p-¶- h-tbm-[n-I-\mb At±lw h[-in£ \nÀ¯-em-¡-W-sa¶v kÀ¡m-cp-I-tfmSv Ct¸mgpw At]-£n-¨v sIm-In-cn-¡p-I-bmWv F¶-XmWv Gsd Zb-\o-bw. 

XpSÀ¶v 1980-þ-emWv _¨³kn§v þ ]©m_v kÀ¡mÀ (AIR 1980 SC 898, Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, Constitutional Bench: Justice Y.B Chandrachud and Others.) tIkv kp{]ow-tIm-S-Xn-bpsS `c-W-L-S\m s_©nsâ ]cn-K-W\¡v h¶-Xv. CXn\p ap³]v {Inan-\ \S-]Sn \nbaw 1973-þ ]p\-cm-hn-jvI-cn-¡p-Ibpw 354(3) hIp¸p {]Imcw h[-in£ \ÂIp¶ ]£w {]tX-yI Imc-W-§Ä (Special Reasons) -tcJs¸-Sp¯Wsa¶v \njvIÀjn¡pIbpw sNbvXn-cp-¶p. 1979-þ PÌnkv hn.-BÀ. IrjvW-¿À, DÄs¸« kp{]nw tImSXn _©v `qcn-]£ Xocp-am-\-{]-Imcw cmtP-{µ-{]-km-Zv-þ-D-¯À{]-tZiv kÀ¡mÀ (AIR 1979 SC 916, Rajendraprasad v. State of UP, Bench: J.V.R.Krishna Iyer & J.Desai.) tIkn h[-in-£-¡p-ff tIkn {]tX-yI Imc-W-§Ä, Ipäs¯ t\m¡n-bÃ, Ipä-hm-fn-Isf t\m¡n Xocp-am-\n-¡-W-sa¶v \nÀt±-in-¨n-cp-¶p. 1978-þse ta\Im KmÔn þ C´-y³ bqWn-b³ (1978 SCC 248: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Bench: J.M.Hidayathulla.) tIknse hn[n-{]-kvXm-h-¯nsâ NphSv]nSn-¨m-bn-cp¶p Cu Xocp-am-\w. Cu tIkn PÌokv Fw. lnZmb¯p-f-f-bpsS t\Xr-X-z-¯n-em-bn-cp¶p Xocp-am-\-sa-¦nepw AXnepw PÌnkv hn.-BÀ. IrjvW-¿-cpsS kz-m[o\w {]I-S-am-bn-cp-¶p. bpàn-`-{Z-Xbpw `c-W-L-S-\-bnse auen-Im-h-Im-i-§-fpsS Iq«mb hmb-\bpw Df-fn IcpXn thWw GsXmcp in£m-hn-[nbpw {]kvXm-hn-t¡-IXv F¶-Xm-bn-cp¶p Cu tIknse hn[n-bpsS cXv\-¨p-cp-¡w. 

1979-þse cmtP-{µ-{]-km-Zv-þ-D-¯À{]-tZiv kÀ¡mÀ tIkn-emWv ‘Poh-]-c-y´w in£ \nbm-a-Ihpw h[-in£ A]qÀÆhpw F¶ \nÀt±iw DIm-b-Xv. F¶m CtX XpSÀ¶v 1980-þse _¨³kn§v þ]©m_v kÀ¡mÀ tIkv `c-W-L-S\m _©n\v d^À sNbvX-t¸mÄ h[-in-£-bpsS Imc-y-¯n Bi-b-¡p-g¸w \ne-\n¡p-¶p F¶m-bn-cp¶p PÌnkv ssIemkw A`n-{]m-b-s¸-«-Xv. PKv³tam-l³ tIknse `c-W-L-S\m _©nsâ A`n-{]m-bhpw cmtP-{µ-{]-kmZv þD¯À{]-tZiv kÀ¡mÀ tIknse PÌnkv hn.-BÀ. IrjvW-¿À, PÌnkv tZimbn F¶n-h-cpsS A`n-{]m-bhpw X½n sshcp-²-y-§-fp-sI-¶m-bn-cp¶ NqIn-¡m-Wn-¨-Xv. XpSÀ¶mWv h[-in-£-bpsS Imcy-¯n A]qÀÆ-§-fn A]qÀÆw tIkp-I-fn am{Xw h[-in£ F¶ kn²m´w cq]wsImI _¨³kn§v tIkv kp{]ow tImS-Xn-bpsS `c-W-L-S\m _©v ]cn-tim-[n¨v D¯-chv \ÂIn-b-Xv. cmtP-{µ-{]-kmZv tIkn\p tijw Iogvt¡m-S-Xn-IÄ¡v h[-in£ hn[n-¡m³ A[n-ImcansÃ-¶m-bn-cp¶p A¸o `mKs¯ hmZw. ‘A]qÀÆ-§-fn A]qÀÆw h[-in-£’(Rarest of Rare Theory) F¶ kn²m´w DS-se-Sp-¯Xv h[-in£ icn sh¨psImIp-ff tIkn-em-bn-cp¶p F¶-XmWv sshcp-²-yw. A©p PUvPn-am-cpÄs¸« `c-W-L-S\m s_©n PÌnkv ]n.-F³. `K-hXn am{X-am-bn-cp¶p adn¨v A`n-{]m-b-s¸-«-Xv. C´-y³ in£m \nb-a-¯nse 302-þmw hIp¸v, `c-W-L-S-\-bnse ]Xn-\mev, Ccp-]-¯n-H¶v F¶o auen-Im-h-Im-i-§Ä¡v hncp-²-am-sW¶v (AIR 1980 SC 898: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, Bench, J.P.M.Bhagavathi) At±lw hntbm-P\ hn[n tcJ-s¸-Sp-¯n. 302-þmw hIp-¸n Hcp Ipä-hm-fn-bpsS Poh³ Ah-km-\n-¸n-¡p-¶-Xn\v Imc-W-§-sfm¶pw tcJ-s¸-Sp-¯n-bn-«nà F¶-Xm-bn-cp¶p At±lw IsI¯nb Imc-Ww. F´m-bmepw A¶p-ap-X ‘A]qÀÆ-§-fn A]qÀÆw’tIkp-I-fn s]Sp-¶-XmtWm Hmtcmh[-in-£bpw F¶v tImS-Xn-bn ]cn-tim-[n-¡p-hm³ XpS-§n. PÌokv hn.-BÀ. IrjvW-¿-cpsS [oc-amb \S-]-Sn-IÄ Cu Xocp-am-\-§Ä¡p ]n¶n-ep-sI-¶Xv \nkvXÀ¡amb Imcy-am-Wv. 

XpSÀ¶v 1983-þ cIv IpSpw-_-§Ä X½n-ep-ff hg-¡ns\ XpSÀ¶v kv{XoIfpw Ip«n-I-fp-a-S-§p¶ ]Xn-t\gp t]sc sIme-s¸-Sp-¯nb tIkv kp{]ow tImS-Xn-bpsS ]cn-K-W-\¡v h¶p. a¨n-kn§vþ]©m_v kÀ¡mÀ ((1983) 3 SCC 470: Machhi Singh & Others v.State of Punjab.) tIkn a¨n-kn§v DÄs¸sS aq¶v t]À¡v \ÂInb h[-in£ icn sh¨p-sh-¦nepw ‘A]qÀÆ-§-fn A]qÀÆw’tIkv IsI¯p-¶-Xn-\p-ff {]tX-yI kml-N-c-y-§Ä Fs´m-s¡-sb¶v Cu tIkn hni-Z-ambn {]Xn-]m-Zn-¨n-cp-¶p. in£-bpsS e£yw in£mÀlsâ ]cn-hÀ¯-\hpw ]p\-c-[n-hm-khpw BsW¶v Cu hn[n-\-ym-b-¯n {]kvXm-hn-¡p-I-bpIm-bn. 

C´-y³ in£m \nb-a-¯nse 303-þmw hIp¸v d±m-¡n-s¡m-Ip-ff an¯p-þ-]-©m_v kÀ¡mÀ (AIR 1983 SC 473:Mithu v. State of Punjab.)tIknsâ Dug-am-bn-cp¶p ASp-¯-Xv. C´-y³ in£m \nbaw 303-þmw hIp-¸-\p-k-cn¨v Po-h-]-c-y´w in£n-¡-s¸« HcmÄ sIme-]m-XIw sN¿p¶ ]£w AbmÄ¡v h[-in£ \ÂIWw F¶m-bn-cp¶p \nbaw. Cu hIp¸v in£m\nb-a-¯n \n¶pw FSp¯p If-ªp-sImIv PÌokv ssh.-_n. N{µ-Nq-Vsâ t\Xr-X-z-¯n-ep-ff _©v hn[n ]pd-s¸-Sp-hn-¨p. Ipä-Ir-X-y-¯n\v h[-in£ \nÀ_-Ô-ambpw \ÂI-W-sa¶v \S-]-Sn-bmWv Cu hIp¸v Xs¶ Hgn-hm-¡p-¶-Xn\v CS-bm-¡n-b-Xv. CXv h[-in-£m hntcm-[n-IÄ¡v Hcp hnP-b-ambn IW-¡m-¡-s¸-Sp-¶p. 

Zo\-þ-C-´-y³ bqWn-b³ (AIR 1983 SC 115: Deena v. Union of India; Hanging is Illegal.) tIkn Xq¡n-s¡m-Ãp-¶Xv `c-W-L-S\m hncp-²-amtWm F¶v ]cn-tim-[n¨ kp{]nw tImSXn, AXv `c-W-L-S\m hncp-²-a-söv IsI-¯n. Xq¡n-s¡m-Ãp-¶Xv {Iqc-am-bn-«p-ff h[-in£m amÀ¤-a-sÃ-¶-Xn-\m 21-þmw auen-Im-h-Imiw AXv ewLn-¡p-¶n-Ã. F¶m 1986-þse AtämÀWn P\-dÂ, C³U-yþe-Nva-tZhn (AIR 1986 SC 467:Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi.) F¶ tIkn s]mXp-Ø-e¯v Xq¡n-s¡m-Ãp-¶Xv `c-W-L-S\m hncp-²-am-b-Xp-sImIv Pbn am\p-h-ep-I-fn \n¶v A¯cw N«-§Ä \o¡w sN¿-W-sa¶v \nÀt±-in-¨n-cp-¶p. AÃm-hp-±o³ anb³-þ-_o-lmÀ kÀ¡mÀ (AIR 1989 SC 1456: Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, Bench J.Ahmadi.) tIkn PÌokv Al-½Zn h[-in-£tbm PbnÂin-£tbm F¶ Xocp-am-\-¯n F¯p-¶-Xn\p ap³]v, hmZ-ap-J-§Ä DbÀ¯p-¶-Xn\v in£mÀl-s\¶v IsI-¯n-b-Xn\p tijw kabw A\p-h-Zn-¡-W-sa¶v D¯-c-hn-«p. am{X-aÃ, Hcp \ym-bm-[n-]\v Ipä-hm-fn¡v h[-in£ \ÂIp-¶-Xn-\p-X-Ip¶ Imc-W-§Ä \nb-X-ambn ]d-bm-\m-hp-¶n-Ãm-sb-¦n AXnepw Ipdª in£ \ÂtI-IXm-sW¶pw At±lw tcJ-s¸-Sp-¯n-bn-cp-¶p. 

h[-in£ Hcp ‘\oXn-\-ymb kwhm-Z-’ambn XpS-cp-¶-Xnsâ e£-W-§-fmWv Cu hn[n-I-fn ImWp-¶-Xv. C´-y³ in£m hn[n-bn h[-in£ \oXo-I-cn-¡-s¸«p XpS-cp-¶Xpw A´m-cmjv{S \oXn-I-fn h[-in£ \oXo-I-cn-¡p-hm-\m-hmsX \ne-\n¡p-¶Xpw PqUoj-y-dnsb _m[n¨p F¶v hy-àw. CXp IqSmsX am\-hnI aqe-y-§-fpsS DZm-¯-amb kzm-[o\w PpUo-j-y-dn¡v GXp hnt[-\bpw Hcmsf sIme-s¸-Sp-¯p-¶-Xn \n¶v Hgn-hm-¡-W-sa¶ t{]-cW \ÂIp-¶pIv. F¶m Ipä-hm-fn-IÄ IqSp-X {IqcX ImWn-¡p¶ L«-§-fn kpJ-I-c-amb PbnÂhmkw Ahs\ IqSp-X kp`n-£\pw kpµ-c-\p-am¡n \ne-\nÀ¯p¶ Ah-Ø-bp-apIv. s{Sbn-\n ]oV-\-{i-a-¯n-\n-S¡v sImÃ-s¸« kuay F¶ s]¬Ip-«n-bpsS sIme-]m-X-In-bmb tKmhn-µ-¨man F¶ `n£-¡m-csâ C¶s¯ cq]w Bscbpw AXn-i-bn-¸n-¡p-¶-Xm-Wv. Chsc kaq-l-¯n Ak-z-Ø-X-bp-f-hm-Ip¶ hn[w kpc-£n-Xhpw km[m-cW P\-§Ä¡v {]m]-y-am-hm-¯-hn[w ‘BUw-_c PohnX’\ne-hm-c-¯n kq£n-¡p-Ibpw sNt¿Inhcp¶ kml-N-c-y-§Ä hne-bn-cp-¯m-Xn-cn-¡p-hm-\m-hn-Ã. apwss_-bn B{I-aWw \S-¯nb APva Ik-_ns\ kwc-£n-¡p-¶-Xn\p am{Xw kÀ¡mÀ Nne-h-gn-¨Xv tImSn-I-fm-Wv. Cu Ah-Ø-IÄ X½n-ep-ff kwLÀjw aqew P\-Xsb Xo{h-hm-Z-¯n \n¶v amän \nÀ¯pI F¶ e£-y-¯n ]e-t¸mgpw h[-in£ F¶ {]mIrX \S-]-Sn-bn-tev tImS-Xn-Isf Ct¸mgpw hen¨n-g-¡m-dpIv. 

A]qÀÆ-§-fn A]qÀÆw ac-W-in£ hn[n-¡m-hp¶ tIkp-IÄ Xocp-am\nt¡IXv Ipä-Ir-X-y-¯n\v arKo-bX sImIv am{X-am-h-cpXv F¶v ]©n-þ-D-¯À{]-tZiv kÀ¡mÀ (AIR1998 SC 2726: Panchi v. State of Uttar Pradesh) tIkn A`n-{]m-b-s¸«ncp-¶p. kzman {i²m-\-µ-þ-IÀ®m-SI kÀ¡mÀ (2008 (3) KLT SN 62 (C.No. 77) SC = AIR 2008 SC 3040: Swamy Shradhananda@Murali Manohar Mishra v.State of Karnataka.) tIkn h[-in£ Hgn-hm-¡n-sb¦nepw Poh-]-c-y´w in£-sb-¶m Pohn-Xm-h-km\w hsc-bm-sW¶pw ]Xn-\mep hÀj-aà F¶pw hn[n-bp-Im-bn. Ipä-hm-fn-bpsS in£ Poh-]-c-y-´-ambn Ipdhp sN¿p¶ L«-¯n ]Xn-\mep hÀjs¯ Pbn hmk-¯n\p tijw Ipä-hmfn hoIpw kaq-l-a-²-y-¯n Ah-X-cn-¡p-¶Xv {i²m-\µ tIknse hn[n-tbmsS kp{]owtImSXn Ah-km-\n-¸n-¨p. h[-in-£sb Hgn-hm-¡p-¶-Xn-\p-ff Hcp NqIp-]-e-I-bmbn Cu hn[nsb ImWmw. 

Ch-bvs¡Ãmw A\p-_-Ô-am-bmWv 2009-þse kt´mjv _mcn-bÀ ((2009) 6 SCC 498: Santhoshkumar Shashi Bhushan Barier v. State of Maharashtra.) tIknse D¯-chv kp{]ow tImSXn ]pd-s¸-Sp-hn-¨-Xv. kt´mjv Ipamdpw aäv aq¶v t]cpw tNÀ¶v ImÀ¯n¡vcmPv F¶-bmsf X«n-s¡mIv t]mhp-Ibpw tamN-\-{Z-h-y-ambn ]¯v e£w cq]m Bh-i-y-s¸-Sp-Ibpw sNbvXp. XpSÀ¶v ]Ww \ÂIm-¯-Xn-\m ImÀ¯nIv cmPns\ sIm¶p F¶m-bn-cp¶p t{]mkn-I-yq-j³ tIkv. \mep-t]À tNÀ¶v DIm-¡nb {]tX-yI am\-kn-Im-hØbmWv Cu sIme¡v ]n¶n-se¶pw {]Xn-IÄ a\-]-cn-hÀ¯\w kw`hn¨v Pohn-¡p-¶-Xn-\p-ff kml-N-c-y-¯n-s\-Xn-cmbn t{]mkn-I-yq-j\v H¶pw sImIp hcm³ km[n-¨nÃm F¶Xpw ]cn-K-Wn¨v h[-in£ hn[n-¡p-¶-Xn \n¶v tImSXn ]n³am-dp-Ibm-bn-cp-¶p. 

IqSmsX kp{]-[m-\-amb _¨³kn§v tIkn ]mh-s¸-«-hcpw ]W-¡m-c\pw X½n-ep-ff A´cw h[-in-£-bpsS Imc-y-¯n shfn-s¸-Sp-¶p-sI¶ kqN\ \ÂIp-¶p-Iv. “]mh-§fpw Ah-K-Wn-¡-s¸-«-hcpw h-[-in-£mÀl-cm-Ip-t¼mÄ ]Whpw kzm-[o-\-hp-ap-f-f-hÀ ]e-t¸mgpw c£-s]-Sp¶ AhØ h[-in-£-bpsS Imc-y-¯n-epIv (AIR 1982 SC 1325:Bachon Singh, Shu Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab.) F¶ No^v PÌokv `K-h-Xn-bpsS hntbm-P\ hn[n-\-ym-b-¯n-ep-ff ]cm-aÀiw kt´mjv _mcn-bÀ tIkn ]cn-K-Wn-¡-s¸-«p. CXnsâ ASn-Øm-\-¯n ‘A]qÀÆ-§-fn A]qÀÆw tIkp-IÄ¡p am{Xw h[-in£’F¶ kn²m-´-t¯m-sSm¸w Poh-]-c-y´w XShp in£-bpsS km[-yX bpà-am-hnà F¶ L«-¯n am{Xw h[-in£ F¶p-IqSn Iq«n-t¨À¯p. Ipä-hm-fn-bpsS a\:]cn-hÀ¯\w Akm[-y-am-sW¶v sXfn-bn-¡pI F¶Xv Akm-[-y-am-I-bm bYmÀ°-¯n kt´mjv _mcn-bÀ tItkmSp IqSn h[-in£ C´-y-bn Ah-km-\n-t¡-In-bn-cp-¶-XmWv. 1977-þ PÌokv hn.-BÀ. IrjvW-¿À Knbm-kp-±o³-þ-B-{Ô-kÀ¡mÀ (AIR 1977 SC 1926:Giasudheen v. State of Andhra Pradesh.) tIkn a\:]cn-hÀ¯\ kml-N-c-y-§-fmWv, `oIc in£m-hn-[n-bpsS kml-N-c-y-§-fm-h-cpXv {Inan-\ tImS-Xn-I-fn-ep-Im-th-IXv F¶v A`n-{]m-b-s¸-«n-cp-¶-Xn\v AÀl-amb ]cn-K-W\ In«p-¶Xv kt´mjv _mcn-bÀ tIkn-em-Wv. 

A^vk Kpcp-hn\v hn[n¨ h[-in-£-bn-eq-sSbpw apwss_ tIknse {]Xn APva Ik-_ns\ h[-in-£¡v hn[n-¨-t¸mgpw `mcX \nb-a-cwKw ]cn-jvI-cn¨p sImIph¶ “A]qÀÆ-§-fn AX-y-]qÀÆ’hpw ‘]cn-hÀ¯\ km[-y-X-bn-Ãm¯’Xpamb kml-N-c-y-§Ä ]cn-KWn¡p¶Xv \ne¨p t]mbn-cn-¡p-I-bm-Wv. h[-in£ A\-k-yqXw C´-y-bn \ne-\n¡p-Ibpw XpS-cp-Ibpw sN¿p-sa¶v Ch-cpsS hn[nIÄ hy-à-am-¡p-¶p. C´-y-bpsS ]c-tam-¶X \oXn]oTw A^vk Kpcp-hns\ h[-in-£¡p hn[n-¨-t¸mÄ ]d-ªXv h[-in-£ hn[n-¡p-hm³ am{Xw t\cn-«p-ff sXfn-hp-I-fn-sÃ-¦n IqSn kml-N-cy sXfn-hp-I-fpsS ASn-Øm-\-¯n P\-a-\-km-£n¡p thInbpw Ahsc Xr]vXn-s¸-Sp-¯p-¶-Xn\pw A^vk Kpcp-hn\v h[-in-£¡v hn[n-¡p¶p (AIR 2005 SC 3820: State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v.Nagjoth Sandhu @ Afsan Guru.) F¶m-bn-cp¶p. IqSw-Ipfw t]mse-bp-ff hnj-b-§-fnepw P\-hn-Imcw ]cn-K-Wn-¨n-«m-bn-cp¶p Cu {]J-ym-]-\-sa-¦n AwKo-I-cn-¡m-am-bn-cp-¶p. 

cmjv{S-]Xn {]W_v IpamÀ apJÀPn ]Xn-\mdp t]cpsS Zbm-lÀPn CXn-t\m-SIw Xf-fn-¡-f-ªp. Hcp kv{Xo DÄs¸-sS-bp-ff ZoÀL-Im-e-ambn Pbn in£-b-\p-`-hn-¡p¶ Nnecpw C¡q-«-¯n s]Spw. Hcp kv{Xosb C´-y-bn BZ-y-am-bn-«mWv h[-in-£¡v hnt[-b-bm-¡p-hm³ t]mIp-¶-Xv. CsXmcp ]t£ A´m-cmjv{S Xe-¯n {i²n-¡-s¸-«m `mcX-¯n\v Hcp Xocm If-¦-am-bn-cn-¡pw. 

2013-þse {Inan-\ \nba t`Z-K-Xn-bn _em-ÕwKw sN¿-s¸-Sp¶ kv{Xo Kpcp-Xc ]cn-¡p-IÄ G¡p-Itbm, sImÃ-s¸-Sp-Itbm sN¿p¶ ]£w h[-in£ hn[n-¡m-hp-¶-XmWv F¶v ]pXn-sbmcp hIp-¸n-eqsS tNÀ¯n-«pIv. tImS-Xn-IÄ am{X-aÃ, `c-W-Iq-Shpw Ct¸mgpw HutZ-ym-KnI sIme-]m-X-I-§sf \ym-bo-I-cn-¡p-Ibpw t{]cn-¸n-¡p-Ibpw sN¿p-¶p-Iv F¶v Cu t`Z-KXn hy-à-am-¡p-¶p. cmjv{S-]Xn, PqUn-j-ydn, `c-W-IqSw F¶n-hÀ tNÀ¶p-ff h[-in-£-IÄ¡v A\p-Iq-e-ambn Xs¶ P\-hn-Im-chpw \ne-\nÀ¯-s¸-Sp-¶p. `c-W-IqSw sN¿p-¶-Xv X§Ä¡pw BIm-sa¶ {]Xn-tem-a-Nn´ kaq-l-¯n C¯cw \S-]-Sn-IÄ hfÀ¯p-I-bn-à F¶v Bcp IIp? t\cn«v ]nSn-¡-s¸-Sp¶ ]e tamjvSm-¡fpw C¯cw ‘P\-Iobac-W-’§Ä¡v hnt[-b-am-hp¶ hmÀ¯-IÄ \Sp-¡-t¯msS am{Xta hmbn-¡p-hm³ km[n-¡q. 

PÌokv hn.-BÀ.-Ir-jvW-¿-cpsS [otcm-Zm-¯-amb Nne sNdp¯p \n¸p-IÄ DIm-bn-cp-¶n-sÃ-¦n AXn {]mIr-X-amb h[-in£ C´-y-bn XS-hp-in-£-tb-¡mÄ am\-y-amb in£-bmbn ]cn-K-Wn-¡p-s¸-Sm-am-bn-cp-¶p. Hcmsf sIme-s¸-Sp-¯p-¶-Xn-eqsS Abm-fpsS in£ Ah-km-\n-¡p-I-bm-Wv. Pohn-X-Imew apgp-h³ XS-hn-en-Sp-I-bmWv AXnepw henb in£ F¶v \½psS \mSpw `c-W-Iq-Shpw PqUn-j-y-dnbpw a\-Ên-emt¡Inbn-cn-¡p-¶p. 

1.PÌokvv hn.-BÀ .IrjvW-¿À; h[-in-£¡p h[-in£ (Death Sentence on Death Sentence)..

Mechanical Addition of Murder Charges in 
Dowry Death Cases is to be Stopped

(Re-consideration of the Directions in  Rajbir  v. State of Haryana - (2010 (4) KLT 751 (SC) 

(By C.P. Udayabhanu, Advocate, High Court of Kerala)

In a significant Judgment, the Supreme Court has practically put an end to the practice of mechanically adding the charge of Murder (S.302 I.P.C.) in all Dowry Death cases (S.304 I.P.C.) by Trial Judges following a blanket directive of the Supreme Court in Rajbir v. State of Haryana (2010 (4) KLT 751 (SC).

It was on 22nd November 2010, the Bench headed by Justice Katju, along with Justice Gyan Sudha Misra issued a direction to the Trial Courts. The Court said;

“We further direct all Trial Courts in India to ordinarily add Section 302 to the charge of Section 304B, so that death sentences can be imposed in such heinous and barbaric crimes against women”.

The order surprised many, as it came from a Judge who, on every occasion cautioned the Courts against judicial legislation. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2010 (4) KLT 755 (SC). Justice Katju referred the question regarding compounding of non-compoundable offences to larger Bench by holding that the Court cannot amend the statute and must maintain judicial restraint in this connection. He also reminded that the Courts should not try to take over the function of the Parliament or Executive. Interestingly, contradicting himself, above direction was passed to add the charge of murder in all cases falling under Section 304B. The Bench even forgot the legal principle that the act of framing charge is not an empty formality. The order ignored the settled legal position that a charge can be framed only if the records 

prima facie reveal facts which constitute an offence thus charged. The direction virtually amended Section 216 of Cr. P.C., thereby restraining the Trial Courts from applying their minds to the facts and circumstances of each case while framing a Court charge.

As a result, even in cases in which records reveal that the victim has committed suicide, Trial Courts were bound to frame charge for murder!!

The Supreme Court while considering the present case found that though the Trial Court did not find any evidence to invoke the murder charge, it was constrained to frame charge for murder solely to comply with Justice Katju’s judgment. In the charge it was stated as follows; 

“Even otherwise, the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajbir @ Raju & Anr. v. State of Haryana (2010 (4) KLT 751 (SC)) in Special Leave Petition bearing No. 9507/2010 decided on 22.11.2010 duly circulated vide No. 33760- 69/DHC/Gaz/G-X/SCJ/2010 dated 3.12.2010, specific directions have been issued to all the subordinate Courts in India to ordinarily add Section 302 I.P.C. to the charge under Section 304B I.P.C. Therefore, this being the background, charge under Section 302 I.P.C. is being framed in alternative against the accused persons against whom charge under Section 304 B I.P.C. had been framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.”

The Delhi High Court upheld the above order of the Trial Court presumably to comply with the directive in Rajbir case and the other directions in Suganti v. Jagdesan (2002 (1) KLT  581 (SC)  in which it was held as follows:

“It is impermissible for the High Court to overrule the decision of the Apex Court on the ground that Supreme Court laid down the legal position without considering any other point. It is not only a matter of discipline for the High Courts in India, it is the mandate of the Constitution as provided in Article 141 that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India.”

The judgment delivered in Jasvinder Saini & Others v. State (Government of N.C.T. of Delhi) (Crl. Appeal No. 819/2013) on 2nd July 2013 by the Supreme Court Bench consisting of Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai has quashed the charge framed by the Trial Court under Section 302 I.P.C. and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for a fresh consideration. The Bench said;

“The Trial Court in that view of the matter acted mechanically for it framed an additional charge under Section 302 I.P.C. without adverting to the evidence adduced in the case and simply on the basis of the direction issued in Rajbir’s case (supra). The High Court no doubt made a half hearted attempt to justify the framing of the charge independent of the directions in Rajbir’s case (supra), but it would have been more appropriate to remit the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh orders rather than lending support to it in the manner done by the High Court”.

The Supreme Court has now clarified the direction in Rajbir by observing that;

“Be that as it may the common thread running through both the orders is that this Court had in Rajbir’s case (supra) directed the addition of a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. to every case in which the accused are charged with Section 304-B. That was not, in our opinion, the true purport of the order passed by this Court. The direction was not meant to be followed mechanically and without due regard to the nature of the evidence available in the case. All that this Court meant to say was that in a case where a charge alleging dowry death is framed, a charge under Section 302 can also be framed if the evidence otherwise permits.”

There cannot be any scope for doubt on the directive in Rajbir and it was so clear that the Trial Court and the High Court have no choice but to comply with the order literally. Though Rajbir did not contain the words “if the evidence otherwise permits”, it has now been explained by the Supreme Court, by adding such an expression, which it did not actually contain.

But those who know the zero tolerance approach of Justice Katju’s towards dowry deaths would easily realise that Rajbir was his final attempt to award death penalty in all dowry death cases, against his own advice to curb judicial legislation.

In Nathu v. State of U.P. while hearing a bail application (Application No: 12466 of 2002) Justice Katju observed, “In my opinion dowry death is worse than murder but surprisingly there is no death penalty for it whereas death penalty can be given for murder. In my opinion the time has come when law be amended and death sentence should be permitted in case of dowry deaths”. He also directed that a copy of the order be sent by the Registrar to Law Minister and Home Minister with a request that they might consider introducing a Bill in the Parliament for such amendment or an ordinance by the Central Government to the same effect.”

Pursuant to the direction in Nathu v. State, the Law Commission of India examined the question “whether Section 304B of I.P.C. should be amended to provide for more stringent punishment of death to curb the menace of dowry deaths. In its 202nd report dated 9th October, 2007 the Commission concluded that “we do not recommend amendment of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code to provide for death sentence as the maximum punishment in case of dowry death”.

On 28th October, 2010 in Satya Narayan Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2010 (4) KLT SN  63 (C.No. 73) SC = (2010) 13 SCC 689) while upholding the conviction of the accused u/S 304B and 498A the Bench headed by Justice Katju wrote “”In fact, it was really a case under S.302 I.P.C. and death sentence should have been imposed in such a case, but since no charge under S.302 I.P.C. was levelled, we cannot do so, otherwise, such cases of bride burning, in our opinion, fall in the category of rarest of rare cases, and hence deserve death sentence”.

It seems, finally the Bench thought of venturing into judicial legislation and just after three weeks, the same Bench delivered the Rajbir Judgment.