24/04/2020
Death penalty in India and dark clouds upon the definition of rarest of rare
Awarding Death penalty without removing dark clouds upon the definition of rarest of rare is nothing but just to satisfying public consciousness based upon media flimflam which seems to be judgmental most of the time in current scenario
In colonial India, death was originally prescribed as one of the punishments in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), thereafter CRPC amendment in 1898 Section 367 Sub-Section 5 mandated compulsory stating reason of specific punishment in case a offence having death penalty one of punishment and in alternative transportation for Life (at present life imprisonment). Death penalty remained in effect after independence in 1947. The first hanging in Independent India was that of Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte in the Mahatma Gandhi assassination case on 15 November 1949. The fundamental rights provided under Indian constitution Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, no person can be deprived of his life except according to procedure established by law. Supreme court in many judgements has held that the said procedure must be just and reasonable and open door for America’s Due process of Law.
The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980) (2 SCC 684) made it very clear that Capital punishment in India can be given only in rarest of rare cases. This judgement was in line with the previous verdicts in Jagmohan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973), and then in Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979). The Supreme Court of India ruled that the death penalty should be imposed only in "the rarest of rare cases but did not clarify what would be definite meaning of the term "the rarest of rare and let it open for the interpretation in the facts and circumstance of each case. But in today’s scenario when social media and TV media are so vigilant and active which has a deep effect in the mind of general public of country such as India, affecting administrative functioning to election results - the term comes in my mind is media flimflam cases and non-media flimflam cases, then today’s judicially machinery can connect the thought about media influence on our justice system which some time go into the rut of the final result and under mind the justice in our country and further affects the basic of criminal justice system that is “someone is innocent until and unless proved guilty” but so called Hon’ble media in current days makes it opposite “someone is guilty until and unless proved innocent” by under mining his true job which is reporting true facts without contaminating facts with someone’s perceptions but now a days reporting is not of news but of perceptions which is as dangerous as corona virus because that perception affects general public in same manner.
The effect of artificial perception which has been given overtone of news is drastic and creates a negative sense which can not be reverse back because no body has such a deep connectivity in general public then social media and TV not even government.
