A mentally-handicapped man is to be put to death in the US state of Georgia tomorrow, despite protests from human rights activists and mental health advocates calling the execution a miscarriage of justice.
Warren Hill, a 52-year-old African American, is reported to have an IQ of 70, putting him below the threshold for mental disability."There is no dispute among the experts that Mr Hill is mentally retarded," attorney Brian Kammer wrote in an appeal seeking leniency for his client."Because Mr Hill's execution would be a fundamental miscarriage of justice, this Court must stay Mr Hill's imminent execution and vacate his death sentence," he added in another appeal.
Warren Lee Hill
After spending the last 21 years on death row for killing a fellow inmate, Hill was scheduled to die last July.However, the execution was put on hold for several months due to a change in how the killing was to be carried out.Hill is to be the first in the state to receive a single deadly dose of pentobarbital, instead of the previously standard three-drug lethal cocktail.At the time, the state supreme court ruled unanimously to grant a stay of execution, saying it needed to investigate whether a lower court erred in determining that the change in execution protocol was legal under Georgia law.
The US Supreme Court ruled against the execution of prisoners with mental disabilities in 2002, but left each state with the authority to determine what constitutes mental disability.Georgia has the strictest standard of any US state when it comes to determining this, with courts requiring "proof of retardation beyond a reasonable doubt" -- a burden that some mental health professionals say is almost impossible to meet.
"While Georgia never contested Mr Hill's intellectual disability or IQ of 70, he was not able to meet the burden of proof," Eric Jacobson, the Executive Director of the Georgia Council on Developmental Disabilities wrote in an online editorial this week condemning the sentence.However, according to Kammer, the "uniform position of all experts in this case is that Mr Hill is mentally retarded."Three doctors who had previously testified in favour of the state's position, wrote in a statement under oath that their initial evaluation was "extremely and unusually rushed" and "not conducive to an accurate assessment of Mr Hill's condition."Hill was originally serving a life sentence in prison for murdering his girlfriend. While in prison, he bludgeoned a fellow inmate to death with a nail-studded board -- the crime for which he received the death penalty.
Four Veerappan Associates To be Executed Tomorrow?
Delhi-based Manisha Sethi of the Jamia Teachers' Solidarity Association, which has been campaigning against death penalty, said that the government had decided to hang the four convicts only to prove that they had not selectively targeted Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, who was executed last Saturday. "The murder of Afzal Guru is now going to be justified with many more murders," she said.
As security around the Hindalaga Central Prison in Belgaum, Karnataka has been tightened, rumours are abuzz that the four associates of forest brigand Veerappan may be hanged on Sunday.
President Pranab Mukherjee recently rejected the mercy petition of the four aides, who had been sentenced to death for killing 22 people in a landmine blast at Palar in Karnataka in 1993.
On Saturday evening, the four associates -- Simon, Gnana Prakash, Madhiah and Bilavandra -- moved the Supreme Court against the death penalty. However, the SC did not take up the plea for hearing saying there is no proof that execution will take place on Sunday, say lawyers of Veerappan's aides.
Speaking on the phone from Bangalore, Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) VS Raja said that the date of execution was confidential and could not be revealed.
One of the members of the team of lawyers defending them, Mumbai-based Yug Mohit Chaudhry, said that lawyers in Belgaum were denied access to the four accused.
Veerappan’s associates were given life imprisonment by a TADA court for the landmine blast, but the Supreme Court had enhanced this to death penalty in 2004.
"Outside the prison, the lawyers were informed that some prisoners are going to be executed the following morning and therefore nobody will be allowed to meet them. They were further informed that preparations are being made for the execution. Presently, the entire area outside the prison has been cordoned off by the police and no movement is being permitted in the vicinity," said Chaudhry.
Click here!
According to a report in the Deccan Chronicle, the Hindalaga Central Prison is likely to hang three of them one day and the fourth the next as the gallows at the prison have only three hanging ropes.
Raja said that there was no provision to let the lawyers meet the four convicts once the death sentence had been confirmed.
Chaudhry, however, said, "This is complete nonsense. It is their right to ask the court for a judicial review of the rejection of their mercy petition, considering that the rejection took nine years. How are we to file a review petition if we can't meet them and take their signatures on the affidavits?"
The Supreme Court, in Kehar Singh vs Union of India (1989) and in B P Singhal vs Union of India (2010) has held that the orders of the President under Article 72 of the Constitution are subject to judicial review.
The Karnataka high court has stayed the execution of another death row convict, Saibanna, on January 22 on the grounds of delay in deciding on the mercy petition.
Chaudhry also said that according to the jail manual they cannot be hanged before 14 days have passed since the rejection of the mercy petition, but DIG Raja denied this was the case. "An utterly heartless state wants more blood on its hands," said the lawyer.
Delhi-based Manisha Sethi of the Jamia Teachers' Solidarity Association, which has been campaigning against death penalty, said that the government had decided to hang the four convicts only to prove that they had not selectively targeted Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, who was executed last Saturday. "The murder of Afzal Guru is now going to be justified with many more murders," she said.
Officials start to level the 20x40-feet patch of land that will be made into a landscaped garden in honour of late Sena patriarch; the project will take one-and-a-half months to complete
After conducting a low-key bhoomi pujan ceremony on February 6, labourers from the BMC’s Garden Department began work in earnest on Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray’s memorial the very next day, two months after his demise.
Work began on the small plot at Shivaji Park near Shivaji’s statue on the grounds. The memorial will span across 20x40-feet patch of land and a clay statue of around 5x8 feet will be build by the civic body. The land will be made into a landscaped garden with green shrubs and other plants. The plan passed by the municipal commissioner clearly states that no civil structure will be built on the ground.
This memorial was completely ideated and will be executed by the civic body without the help of any architect, as in the case of other memorials. Officials said that the estimated cost of the project would be Rs 6 lakh. Authorities said that the memorial would take around a month-and-a-half to complete.
Deputy Superintendent Gardens (City), said, “There was no need to give any work order as the work of development was going to be done by us (the garden department). There will be greenery all round and small shrubs and plants will be present in the garden. The approximate cost will be approximately Rs 6 lakh.”
When MiD DAY spoke to Mayor Sunil Prabhu, asking why it would take so long for the memorial to be put up, he said, “The work would take a month-and-a-half as work needs to be done properly. The memorial is our Saheb’s memorial and so, we don’t mind if another month or so is taken by the civic body to complete it.”
Afzal Guru’s family snubs India’s offer to visit jail grave
A tomb stone for Afzal Guru (L), is seen at the Martyrs Graveyard in Srinagar on February 12, 2013, and reads, “His mortal remains are lying in trust with the government of India, the Kashmiri nation awaits its return.” Guru, a native of Indian-administered Kashmir, was executed on February 9, 2013 over his role in a deadly attack on parliament in New Delhi in 2001. A former fruit seller, he was hanged at Tihar Jail on the outskirts of the capital after his final appeal for mercy was rejected by President Pranab Mukherjee. — AFP Photo
NEW DELHI: The family of Mohammed Afzal Guru who was executed over the weekend has rejected an offer by Indian authorities to pray at his graveside inside a prison, insisting the body be buried in his home state.
Home Secretary R.K. Singh made the offer Tuesday and said that the belongings of Mohammed Afzal Guru, an Indian Muslim who was executed and buried at Tihar Jail on Saturday for his role in the deadly 2001 Indian parliament attack, would be handed over to his family members.
“We have no problem if the immediate family of Afzal Guru wants to come and offer prayers at his grave in Tihar jail. Belongings of Afzal will be returned to the family,” Singh told reporters in Delhi.
However a relative of Guru said that the family had no intention of visiting his grave, insisting that the body be brought back to his home in Indian-administered Kashmir.
“As Muslims we can pray for Afzal from here,” the separatist’s cousin Yasin Guru told AFP from the family’s hometown of Sopore in the Kashmir Valley.
“We will go to Tihar only if the government of India is kind enough to hand us his body for burial here.”
The announcement comes amid criticism of the government for failing to inform the family about the execution before he went to the gallows.
A letter sent from the government announcing that his mercy plea had been rejected only arrived at the family’s home on Monday morning.
Indian-administered Kashmir’s Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, normally an ally of the government, has been among those criticising the handling of the execution, saying he found it “very difficult” to reconcile himself to the fact that Guru was not given the opportunity to see his family for the last time.
Guru was convicted of helping a group of militants plot an 2001 attack on the Indian parliament which left 10 people dead.
He always maintained his innocence and many of his supporters accused police of framing evidence against him in the case.
A curfew has been in place since Saturday throughout much of Indian-administered Kashmir.
There have also been protests in Pakistani-administered Kashmir.
A burial plot, complete with a headstone, has been prepared for Guru in the so-called ‘Martyrs’ Graveyard’ in Srinagar, the main city in Indian-administered Kashmir.
The inscription reads: “His mortal remains are lying in trust with the government of India, the Kashmiri nation awaits its return,” according to an AFP photographer who has seen the tombstone.
We only demand Afzal Guru's body to be returned to us, says family
[The morning that Afzal Guru was to be executed, he wrote a letter to his wife, Tabassum. Written in Urdu, he handed it over to jail officials before he was marched out for his execution. "He pressed the letter into the jail superintendent's hand just before he was asked to step out of his cell. All he said was that it was meant for his wife and to please ensure that it reached her safely," said a senior Tihar official. The Tihar Jail officials said that Afzal in the letter to his wife, only wrote about family matters. "It was an extremely personal letter where he told his wife to take care of their son and not agonize over his death. In very gently worded language, he said that she should remain strong for their son and not give in to despair. As ever, Guru was calm and dignified in his parting words," said a source. Afzal Guru, a medical college dropout and resident of Sopore in north Kashmir, was executed at 8 am on Saturday, (9th February, 2013) and buried in the prison premises. "He did not spend a sleepless night before his execution. He was one of the most model prisoners in jail, and did not create any trouble till the last," said a senior Tihar official~~Indrani Basu, TNN]
The family of Parliament attack convict Mohammad Afzal Guru today said their only demand was that the Centre return his body to enable them to give him a proper burial.
"We have no other demand...the only thing we want is that Afzal's body be returned to us," Mohammad Yasin, a cousin of Afzal said.
He said the family has written a letter to Tihar jail authorities as well as Deputy Commissioner Baramulla seeking that Guru's body be given to them.
"Soon after we came to know about the hanging, we wrote letters to Deputy Commissioner Baramulla and Tihar Jail authorities for return of the body," Yasin said, adding, they were awaiting a response from the concerned authorities on the matter.
Asked about Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde's statement that government can consider allowing the family to offer 'fatiha' (prayer) on Afzal's grave, Yasin said it was of no use.
"Where will we offer faitha? We want to bury him here (in Sopore)," he said.
On reports that Afzal's family might be airlifted to Delhi for the purpose of visiting Afzal's grave, he said the family would go on their own if the situation comes to that.
"We will go to Delhi on our own, if it comes to that. We do not want any largesse from the Government. The only thing we want from them is to return Afzal's body," he said.
He termed as "cruel joke" the letter received yesterday from Tihar Jail authorities informing the family about Afzal's hanging.
"The arrival of the letter yesterday was like rubbing salt into open wounds of the family...the wounds which may never heal," Yasin said.
He alleged that the leaders of the country were playing politics over the death of Afzal.
"Afzal was hanged -- rightly or wrongly, we don't want to go into that -- but politicians should stop playing politics with it," he said.
Post Afzal hanging, rights groups demand India end executions
PTI : Feb 10, 2013
NEW YORK/LONDON: In the wake of the hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, global rights groups have asked India to end the use of executions and move towards abolishing the death penalty.
"Questions need to be asked why the Indian government executed Afzal Guru now," New York-based Human Rights Watch's South Asia director Meenakshi Ganguly said.
"No one argues that those who engage in serious crimes shouldn't be punished, but the death penalty is brutal and irreversible, and there is no convincing evidence to suggest it serves as a deterrent," Ganguly said.
The group said it opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as an inherently irreversible, inhumane punishment.
The hanging of Guru comes just three months after India executed the lone surviving 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab in a Pune jail.
"India should end this distressing use of executions as a way to satisfy some public opinion," said Ganguly.
"It should instead join the nations that have chosen to abolish capital punishment," she said.
Guru's execution makes it more urgent for India to reinstate its previous informal moratorium on executions as a step towards abolishing the death penalty, the rights group added.
Meanwhile, London-based Amnesty International has also expressed concern over Afzal's execution.
"We condemn the execution in the strongest possible terms. This very regrettably puts India in opposition to the global trend towards moving away from death penalty", said Shashikumar Velath, Programmes Director at Amnesty International India.
He alleged "serious questions have been raised about the fairness of Afzal Guru's trial. He did not receive legal representation of his choice or a lawyer with adequate experience at the trial stage. These concerns were not addressed".
"Before Ajmal Kasab's execution in November, Indian authorities used to make information about the rejection of mercy petitions and dates of execution available to the public prior to any executions. The new practice of carrying out executions in secret is highly disturbing," Velath said.
Guru was executed early yesterday for providing logistical support in the attack on the Indian parliament in December 2001, in which five heavily-armed gunmen entered the complex and opened fire indiscriminately, killing nine, including six security personnel, two parliament guards, and a gardener. All five attackers were also killed.
“Questions need to be asked why the Indian government executed Afzal Guru now. No one argues that those who engage in serious crimes shouldn’tbe punished, but the death penalty is brutal and irreversible, and there is no convincing evidence to suggest it serves as a deterrent.” ~~Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director
(New York) –The hanging in New Delhi of Mohammad Afzal Guru makes it more urgent for India to reinstate its previous informal moratorium on executions as a step towards abolishing the death penalty, Human Rights Watch said today. Azfal Guru, executed on February 9, 2013, was convicted for his role in the attack on the Indian parliament in 2001.
In November 2012, India ended its eight-year unofficial moratorium on executions when it hanged Ajmal Kasab, convicted for his role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
“Questions need to be asked why the Indian government executed Afzal Guru now,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director. “No one argues that those who engage in serious crimes shouldn’t be punished, but the death penalty is brutal and irreversible, and there is no convincing evidence to suggest it serves as a deterrent.”
Under Indian law, the death penalty is supposed to be carried out only in the “rarest of rare” cases.
Afzal Guru was convicted for providing logistical support to those involved in the attack on the Parliament building in New Delhi on December 13, 2001, in which five heavily-armed gunmen entered the complex and opened fire indiscriminately, killing nine, including six security personnel, two parliament guards, and a gardener. All five attackers, later identified as Pakistani nationals, were killed. No member of parliament was hurt.
Four people, including Afzal Guru, were charged with conspiring in the attack and waging war. In December 2002, three people,Syed Abdul Rahman Geelani, Shaukat Hussain Guru, and Afzal Guru, were sentenced to death. The fourth, Afsan Guru, was acquitted. Geelani was acquitted on appeal. In August 2005 the Supreme Court commuted Shaukat Hussain’s sentence to 10 years in prison but confirmed the death sentence of Afzal Guru. An appeal for clemency was filed for Afzal Guru but was rejected by President Pranab Mukherjee on February 3.
Many Indian activists and lawyers have claimed that Azfal Guru did not receive proper legal representation. He did not have a lawyer from the time of his arrest until he confessed in police custody. Azfal Guru claimed that he had been tortured into making his confession, which he later retracted. Several Indian activists and senior lawyers have said that he did not have effective assistance of counsel.
The Indian government has defended the conviction, saying that Azfal Guru was able to appeal his conviction and that his claims were rejected by higher courts.Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as an inherently irreversible, inhumane punishment. In July 2012, 14 retired Supreme Court and High Court judges asked the president to commute the death sentences of 13 inmates they said had been erroneously upheld by the Supreme Court over the past nine years. This followed the court’s admission that some of these death sentences were rendered per incuriam (out of error or ignorance). In November 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that the “rarest of rare” standard for capital punishment had not been applied uniformly over the years and the norms on the death penalty needed “a fresh look.”
“India should end this distressing use of executions as a way to satisfy some public opinion,” said Ganguly. “It should instead join the nations that have chosen to abolish capital punishment.”
~~V. Venkatesan There is a need to identify cases in which the courts might have erred in applying the Bachan Singh principle that limits the imposition of the death penalty
The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench judgment in Bachan Singh (1980) is the source of contemporary death penalty jurisprudence in India. Its major contribution was to limit the imposition of death penalty to the rarest of rare crimes, and for laying down the principle that the courts must impose the death sentence on a convict only if the alternative sentence of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. For achieving these twin objectives, the court held that judges must consider the aggravating features of the crime, as well as the mitigating factors of the criminal.
However, the application of its principles by the courts to various cases before them has been very uneven, and inconsistent. This has naturally led to the criticism that the jurisprudence suffers from a judge-centric approach, rather than a principles-centric approach.
Matter of concern:
It is a matter of concern when this criticism emanates from the judiciary itself, as it smacks of its helplessness. The frequency of such criticism from the judiciary may appear to be exercises in genuine introspection but to the litigants, the very credibility of the court’s death penalty decisions is at stake.
The execution of death row prisoners in India might have come to a near standstill, with only one in the last decade, and another recently. Yet, the frequency of confirmation of death sentences by the Supreme Court has created a large pool of death row prisoners in the country, who may be living between life and death constantly for many years, till the executive decides on their mercy petitions. When the Supreme Court time and again admits that many of these prisoners might have been sentenced on the basis of erroneous legal precedents set by itself, the executive cannot pretend to be unconcerned.
The latest admission of such error is to be found in the judgment delivered by Justice Madan B. Lokur for himself and on behalf of Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan, in Sangeet & ANR vs. State of Haryana, on November 20.
The genesis of Sangeet can be traced to another Supreme Court judgment delivered in 2009. In Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, a two-judge Bench admitted to error in the sentencing to death of seven convicts by the previous benches of the court. Similar error was immediately noticed in the sentencing to death of six more convicts, after the delivery of judgment in Bariyar, taking their total to 13.
The error was the reliance by the court on a legal precedent, which Bariyar declared as per incuriam. The term, per incuriam, refers to a decision which a subsequent court finds to be a mistake, occurring through ignorance of a relevant authority, and therefore not a binding precedent.
Erroneous precedent:
The erroneous legal precedent was Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, decided in 1996 by a two-judge Bench. In Ravji, the court had found only characteristics relating to the crime, to the exclusion of the criminal, as relevant to sentencing. Bariyar noted with disapproval that the court had relied on Ravji as an authority on the point that in heinous crimes, circumstances relating to the criminal are not pertinent, in six cases. This was inconsistent with the Bachan Singh ruling by the five-Judge Constitution Bench in 1980, which had shifted the focus of sentencing from the “crime” to the “crime and the criminal”.
In Sangeet, the Radhakrishnan-Lokur Bench has continued the judicial scrutiny started by Bariyar of post-Bachan Singh death penalty cases, to see if they have complied with the requirements of the law. Thanks to this scrutiny, five other cases which resulted in the wrongful sentencing to death of six more convicts have come to light. They are Shivu, Jadeswamy, B.A. Umesh, Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik, Mohd. Mannan, and Sushil Murmu. The former President, Pratibha Patil, has already commuted Murmu’s death sentence to life imprisonment.
Back to 13:
Five of the 13 convicts identified in and after Bariyar have already got their sentences commuted to life imprisonment by competent authorities. With Sangeet pointing to five more such convicts, the total number of prisoners to be taken off the death row is back to 13 again.
Unlike Bariyar, however, Sangeet has not declared the five erroneous judgments per incuriam. But the result of the scrutiny in both the cases is the same: no future Bench can cite these cases on a point of law, without inviting the Ravji taint. The recent appeal by 14 former judges to the President to spare the lives of the eight convicts, who have been wrongly sentenced to death by the Supreme Court must, therefore, apply equally to these five convicts identified in Sangeet.
It is not unusual to come across observations by the courts while justifying the death sentence, that there is extreme indignation of the community over the nature of the crime, and that collective conscience of the community is petrified by the extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner of the commission of the crime. After making these observations, it is easy for the courts to jump to the conclusion that the criminal is a menace to society and shall continue to be so and he cannot be reformed.
These are empty clichés repeated ad nauseam without any basis. Sangeet, therefore, gently reminds the courts about the need to back such observations with some material. The nature of the crime alone cannot form such material, it has held.
Sangeet has pointed out a grave infirmity with regard to the sentencing of Umesh and Sushil Murmu, to death. The Supreme Court found both Umesh and Sushil Murmu incapable of rehabilitation and, therefore, deserving of the death sentence because of their alleged involvement in crimes other than those for which they were convicted — turning upside down the doctrine of presumption of innocence, the cornerstone of our criminal jurisprudence.
Bachan Singh, delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench, clearly discarded the proposition that the court must balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances through a balance sheet theory. The theory requires weighing aggravating factors of the crime against the mitigating factors of the criminal. In Machhi Singh (1983), however, a three-judge Supreme Court Bench, brought the balance sheet theory back, and gave it legitimacy. The theory has held the field post-Machhi Singh.
Sangeet has sought to revive the Bachan Singh dictum that the aggravating circumstances of the crime and the mitigating circumstances of the criminal are completely distinct and different elements, and cannot be compared with one another. Therefore, it has held that a balance sheet cannot be drawn up of two distinct and different constituents of an incident, as required by Machhi Singh.
Sangeet holds the balance sheet theory responsible for much of the arbitrariness in judging whether a case falls under the rarest of rare category, a test enunciated in Bachan Singh. It also endorses the proposition that by standardising and categorising crimes, Machhi Singh considerably enlarged the scope for imposing the death penalty, that was greatly restricted by Bachan Singh.
The Radhakrishnan-Lokur Bench, being a two-judge Bench, could not have overruled Machhi Singh, despite its obvious flaws, and the source of much of the inconsistency in our death penalty jurisprudence. A three-judge bench in Swami Shraddhanand II in 2008 had raised similar doubts about Machhi Singh; but the courts continue to invoke it.
In its judgment delivered on August 29, among other things, the Supreme Court relied on the flawed Machhi Singh for its reasoning, and used the balance sheet theory, arraigned by Sangeet, to sentence Ajmal Kasab.
The serious issues raised in Sangeet are incapable of being resolved by the judiciary itself. Any delay in their resolution will inexorably create more death row convicts, than what is justified legally. There is indeed a case for the government to immediately announce a moratorium on executing death sentences and set up a Commission to identify the cases in which any of the courts — trial courts, high courts and the Supreme Court — might have erred in correctly applying the Bachan Singh principles, while sentencing. The findings of the Commission will be useful for deciding the future of death sentence in the country.
Eight years ago, the Supreme Court condemned Muhammad Afzal Guru to be hanged for his role in the 2001 attack on Parliament House, saying, astonishingly, that “the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender.” Guru was walked to the gallows Saturday morning at the end of the macabre rite governments enact from time to time to propitiate that most angry of gods, a vengeful public. Through this grim, secret ceremony, however, India has been gravely diminished. The reasons for this are not just the obvious ones — among them, that Guru was a bit-actor in the attack on Parliament, and his trial marred by procedural and substantive errors. These arguments were examined by the highest court in the country and found wanting. There is one argument, though, that wasn't ever examined — which is precisely why Guru, like scores of other Indians, ended up on death row in the first place. The answer has a great deal to do with expedience, and nothing to do with justice.
The hideous truth is this: judicial executions in India have all the rationality of the roulette table. Last month, Justices P Sathasivam and Fakkir Kalifullah commuted the death penalty given to Mohinder Singh for killing both his daughter and wife -- this while out of prison on parole where he was serving time for earlier raping the girl. The judges argued that the death penalty ought only be considered when a perpetrator posed “a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society.” One week later, Justices Sathasivam and Jagdish Khehar upheld death for Sundararajan, who kidnapped and then killed a seven year old boy. The judges noted, among other things the “agony for parents for the loss of their male child, who would have carried further the family lineage.” Besides the obvious imprint of gender values on judicial reasoning, it is the arbitrariness of outcome in cases that are similar which tells us something is seriously wrong. In a signal article published recently in this newspaper. V. Venkatesan noted how the Supreme Court has itself admitted that many of those on death row are there because of“erroneous legal precedents set by itself.” (December 10, 2012) Yet, both the judiciary and the government have been reluctant to announce a moratorium on executions until a thoroughgoing review is carried out. This ought not to surprise us: in case after case, the course of criminal justice has been shaped by public anger and special-interest lobbying. Indians must remember the foundational principle of our Republic, the guardian of all our rights and freedoms, isn't popular sentiment: it is justice, which in turn is based on the consistent application of principles. For one overriding reason, Guru’s hanging ought to concern even those unmoved by his particular case, or the growing ethics-based global consensus against the death penalty. There is no principle underpinning the death penalty in India today except vengeance. And vengeance is no principle at all.
Wasn’t it? Yesterday I mean. Spring announced itself in Delhi. The sun was out, and the Law took its Course. Just before breakfast, Afzal Guru, prime accused in the 2001 Parliament Attack was secretly hanged, and his body was interred in Tihar Jail. Was he buried next to Maqbool Butt? (The other Kashmiri who was hanged in Tihar in 1984. Kashmiris will mark that anniversary tomorrow.) Afzal’s wife and son were not informed. “The Authorities intimated the family through Speed Post and Registered Post,” the Home Secretary told the press, “the Director General of J&K Police has been told to check whether they got it or not.” No big deal, they’re only the family of a Kashmiri terrorist.
In a moment of rare unity the Nation, or at least its major political parties, the Congress, the BJP and the CPM came together as one (barring a few squabbles about ‘delay’ and ‘timing’) to celebrate the triumph of the Rule of Law. The Conscience of the Nation, which broadcasts live from TV studios these days, unleashed its collective intellect on us — the usual cocktail of papal passion and a delicate grip on facts. Even though the man was dead and gone, like cowards that hunt in packs, they seemed to need each other to keep their courage up. Perhaps because deep inside themselves they know that they all colluded to do something terribly wrong.
What are the facts?
On the 13th of December 2001 five armed men drove through the gates of the Parliament House in a white Ambassador fitted out with an Improvised Explosive Device. When they were challenged they jumped out of the car and opened fire. They killed eight security personnel and a gardener. In the gun battle that followed, all five attackers were killed. In one of the many versions of confessions he made in police custody, Afzal Guru identified the men as Mohammed, Rana, Raja, Hamza and Haider. That’s all we know about them even today. L.K. Advani, the then Home Minister, said they ‘looked like Pakistanis.’ (He should know what Pakistanis look like right? Being a Sindhi himself.) Based only on Afzal’s confession (which the Supreme Court subsequently set aside citing ‘lapses’ and ‘violations of procedural safeguards’) the Government of India recalled its Ambassador from Pakistan and mobilised half a million soldiers to the Pakistan border. There was talk of nuclear war. Foreign embassies issued Travel Advisories and evacuated their staff from Delhi. The standoff lasted for months and cost India thousands of crores.
On the 14th of December 2001 the Delhi Police Special Cell claimed it had cracked the case. On the 15th of December it arrested the ‘master mind’ Professor S.A.R Geelani in Delhi and Showkat Guru and Afzal Guru in a fruit market in Srinagar. Subsequently they arrested Afsan Guru, Showkat’s wife. The media enthusiastically disseminated the Special Cell’s version. These were some of the headlines: ‘DU Lecturer was Terror Plan Hub’, ‘Varsity Don Guided Fidayeen’, ‘Don Lectured on Terror in Free Time.’ Zee TV broadcast a ‘docudrama’ called December 13th , a recreation that claimed to be the ‘Truth Based on the Police Charge Sheet.’ (If the police version is the truth, then why have courts?) Then Prime Minister Vajpayee and L.K. Advani publicly appreciated the film. The Supreme Court refused to stay the screening saying that the media would not influence judges. The film was broadcast only a few days before the fast track court sentenced Afzal, Showkat and Geelani to death. Subsequently the High Court acquitted the ‘mastermind’, Professor S.A.R Geelani, and Afsan Guru. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal. But in its 5th August 2005 judgment it gave Mohammed Afzal three life sentences and a double death sentence.
Contrary to the lies that have been put about by some senior journalists who would have known better, Afzal Guru was not one of “the terrorists who stormed Parliament House on December 13th 2001” nor was he among those who “opened fire on security personnel, apparently killing three of the six who died.” (That was the BJP Rajya Sabha MP, Chandan Mitra, in The Pioneer, October 7th 2006). Even the police charge sheet does not accuse him of that. The Supreme Court judgment says the evidence is circumstantial: “As is the case with most conspiracies, there is and could be no direct evidence amounting to criminal conspiracy.” But then it goes on to say: “The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties had shaken the entire nation, and the collective conscience of society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender.”
Who crafted our collective conscience on the Parliament Attack case? Could it have been the facts we gleaned from the papers? The films we saw on TV?
There are those who will argue that the very fact that the courts acquitted S.A.R Geelani and convicted Afzal proves that the trial was free and fair. Was it?
The trial in the fast-track court began in May 2002. The world was still convulsed by post 9/11 frenzy. The US government was gloating prematurely over its ‘victory’ in Afghanistan. The Gujarat pogrom was ongoing. And in the Parliament Attack case, the Law was indeed taking its own course. At the most crucial stage of a criminal case, when evidence is presented, when witnesses are cross-examined, when the foundations of the argument are laid — in the High Court and the Supreme Court you can only argue points of law, you cannot introduce new evidence — Afzal Guru, locked in a high security solitary cell, had no lawyer. The court-appointed junior lawyer did not visit his client even once in jail, he did not summon any witnesses in Afzal’s defence and did not cross examine the prosecution witnesses. The judge expressed his inability to do anything about the situation.
Even still, from the word go, the case fell apart. A few examples out of many:
How did the police get to Afzal? They said that S.A.R Geelani led them to him. But the court records show that the message to arrest Afzal went out before they picked up Geelani. The High Court called this a ‘material contradiction’ but left it at that.
The two most incriminating pieces of evidence against Afzal were a cellphone and a laptop confiscated at the time of arrest. The Arrest Memos were signed by Bismillah, Geelani’s brother, in Delhi. The Seizure Memos were signed by two men of the J&K Police, one of them an old tormentor from Afzal’s past as a surrendered ‘militant’. The computer and cellphone were not sealed, as evidence is required to be. During the trial it emerged that the hard disc of the laptop had been accessed after the arrest. It only contained the fake home ministry passes and the fake identity cards that the terrorists used to access Parliament. And a Zee TV video clip of Parliament House. So according to the police, Afzal had deleted all the information except the most incriminating bits, and he was speeding off to hand it over to Ghazi Baba, who the charge sheet described as the Chief of Operations.
A witness for the prosecution, Kamal Kishore, identified Afzal and told the court he had sold him the crucial SIM card that connected all the accused in the case to each other on the 4th of December 2001. But the prosecution’s own call records showed that the SIM was actually operational from November 6th 2001.
It goes on and on, this pile up of lies and fabricated evidence. The courts note them, but for their pains the police get no more than a gentle rap on their knuckles. Nothing more.
Then there’s the back story. Like most surrendered militants Afzal was easy meat in Kashmir — a victim of torture, blackmail, extortion. In the larger scheme of things he was a nobody. Anyone who was really interested in solving the mystery of the Parliament Attack would have followed the dense trail of evidence that was on offer. No one did, thereby ensuring that the real authors of conspiracy will remain unidentified and uninvestigated.
But now that Afzal Guru has been hanged, I hope our collective conscience has been satisfied. Or is our cup of blood still only half full?
LATE GOPAL GODSE AND CONSPIRACY THEORY ~~Suman Mukhopadhyay
Late Gopal Godse
The problem is that Human memory is short and Indian media is sold: Many of the journalists you see on TV are simply "Dalals" or "Agents" of Political Outfits in India. Most of the Politicians want loyalty and a bunch of Journalists oblige them (but not all though). Hence, they would present the news and views as is desired by their bosses. Most of these journalists (except a few) are spineless bunch of parasites.
"Before analysing the possibly disastrous consequences of this hanging, it is imperative to understand the mindset of television news anchors who have successfully managed to convert personal beliefs into news, and trash all voices of sanity and sobriety that seek answers to complex questions. News channels are supposed to report the news and not give their editorial comments to a point where contrary voices are restricted from giving their views. There was a time when reporters followed the news, reporting it as it was, communicating and informing the public, without wearing their prejudice, bias or for that matter, views on their sleeves. Journalists are supposed to play the devil's advocate, be on the other side of the fence as it were, and review the story in all its dimensions. Indian democracy has many views, and a media that insists only on one view as 'nationalist' promotes a monolith that is in contradiction to the pluralism and diversity of this country. was clear at the onset that the police had no clue about the attackers. Finally, Delhi university lecturer S A R Geelani was arrested, and then Afzal Guru was picked up. Geelani's trial took a chequered course, but because of the support in Delhi and the involvement of well known lawyers, he was finally released. Guru was from Kashmir and unable to afford a decent lawyer. He did not have the money and as senior advocate Kamini Jaiswal managed to say hastily on a news channel, he went virtually unrepresented. Somehow we have becomes so blood thirsty as a nation, so wedded to war
and violence (largely because of TRP ratings) that we do not like to ask
any questions. After all, even a death row convict has rights, or is the case now that
all these chaps should be shown no mercy and hung the moment they are
convicted by the courts? And should not it be the job of the sane voice of journalism to ensure that at least the rule of law is respected, and the rights of an individual acknowledged? The impact of the hanging can have damaging repercussions at different levels, and far more than this government will be able to handle", says Seema Mustafa, the former Political Editor and Delhi Bureau Chief of The Asian Age newspaper published in India.
Anyway, today, the whole day I kept more or less quiet as I was fearing, communal flare up and did not want to add to the mess already created by two former "Failure Ministers", Shinde---Pranab combination.
The day Pranab Mukherjee became the President of India, I started counting the number of blunders he will do, after his pathetic performance in the Finance Ministry. Sushil Kumar Shinde is a failure minister number one......just ask anyone, about his performance as the CM of Maharashtra. He does not know what to speak and what to say, but then "Unfortunately" , this persons is the home minister of India.
He is simply a junk but then vote bank of caste--politics can make persons of dubious credential as Presidents (Ms.Pratibha Patil) and Home Ministers of India or may be any minister of this great country. This is nothing new.....!!
Anyway, I saw the enthusiasm, and celebration, of a large section of Indian mass (including a section of the Indian media) post hanging of one of the conspirators of the Heinous Parliament Attack, Md.Afzal Guru, a Hindu--Brahmin (Kashmiri Pundit) convert to Islam (may be by force during the Islamic rule in India). There were media reports that, a television news anchor,
shortly after Parliament terror attack accused, Afzal Guru was hung by
the government in Tihar jail, declared, "All nationalist, secular and
progressive people support this." That was just one of the statements among the cacophony of euphoric reactions, following the hanging. But then like in many earlier occasion I am here, still opposing strongly, the continuance of Death Penalty in Indian Union and at the same time questioning the motive behind such drastic move. .
In the accompanying video, Md. Afzal Guru, says, "Motivation from outside the border and steep Financial Crisis, is the cause of his involvement in the attack of the Parliament Attack conspiracy". These two things needs to be dealt firmly but when Dr.Pranab Mukherjee was the defense minister of India, he did not approve of limited air--strikes in enemy territories across the border, for the trivial reasons that it might bring in a third party in the Kashmir issue. The point is that any pending issue needs to be solved, whether it by bipartite or through tripartite arrangements. Does it makes much sense to stick to only one method and drain India's resources? Also, it is better to hit hard, "Fanatical and Political Islam" rather than targeting their victims.
The fate of Afzal Guru, is due to Political Islam, overtaking his conscience, leading him to be a part of the heinous crime nexus.This is the 2nd blunder by the government and it might again escalate the Islamic Terrorism both in the Kashmir Valley and in the whole of India.
Did the execution of Maqbool Bhat of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, in 1984, stop militancy in the Kashmir Valley? Infact hasty execution of Maqbool Bhat, eventually led to ignition of Islamic militancy in the Kashmir Valley, which has its roots in 26/11 Mumbai attack.
When Afzal Guru said the above things (in the video) candidly in the media, little did he think that these inputs can be used as evidence against him, by the media to mould public opinion and various vested groups. He is a simple person or else, he would not have been saying these in the media. Afzal Guru had a lot of books in his cell and he spent most of his time reading them. He also owned a radio to which he used to listen during the evenings. He was not at all a picayunecriminal, except that he was from a poor family. Hence, he could not take the help of the best lawyers in India.
Before, I say anything more let me say that the Parliament Attack act has to be condemned with the highest possible words and the criminal punished according to the law of the land.There has to be an effective justice system, with an adequate delivery mechanism. The laws needs to be changed according to the changing circumstances.
Also, above Honourable Supreme Court, there is another court (though not official but is understood)----the Home Ministry, which can over-rule any Ddeath Sentence, after referring to the President of India. Hence, the President of India is the "Rubber Stamp" of the Home Ministry of India. So, the President of India by his capacity can refuse to sign any petition but it is very difficult to go against the cabinet decision.
So, this hanging of Afzal Guru is more of the handiwork of Sushil Kumar Shinde, who comes from the state of Maharashtra, where Shiv Sena is known to have high affinity for retributive justice methods. Probably that is the reason why he wanted to act smarter than Sena--BJP axis to prove his credentials among the "Marathi Manus", after the former President from Maharashtra, Ms.Pratibha Patil, probably disappointed them all. Now, having said that, please tell me one thing: If conspiracy is the chief reason for hanging a young and educated Indian from Kashmir valley, then tell me why Late Gopal Godse, the brother of Late Nathuram Godse, was given life imprisonment and not hanged....? Was he not a conspirator? How is this case different from that of the assassination of M K Gandhi?
Also, tell me if Murder is such a crime, then how did Late Phoolan Devi become MP, from Uttar Pradesh and Supreme Court did not say anything.....?Yes, I agree, if the law of land permits one can become President of India, with dubious credentials, but then why double standards for the poor and the rich?
Now, there were some placards by some young school girls some months back, as why there are "Rapists" in Indian Parliament and the Indian media projected them, without feeling a little bit ashamed on what they were doing. This has spoiled India's image and many foreigners have started to call Hindustan as "Rapistan". The media has again brought India to its knees. Now tell me is "Murder" a less crime than "Rape".....? Since, Phoolan Devi is a women so she has to be given Life imprisonment....?
Also, tell me what are the positives of hanging someone instead of using the same person to solve a problem.....? SHOULD INDIANS BE GUIDED BY CROWD MENTALITY OR WE NEED TO DEVICE METHODS OR WAYS TO STOP CRIME....?
Yes, I know many of you will say that the government of India is just following Lord Ram, who also did the same thing with his wife, SITA Devi, fully knowing that she is "Pure".Some of our Freedom fighters also murdered people, but then why do we respect them, if the word "Murder" is so bad? What about Khudiram Bose and Bhagat Singh....?
The theory of retributive justice is nothing but a hoax or temporary relief. It never worked anywhere and it will not work in India too. I have said many times that this kind of justice system, led to murder of a couple of millions by Joseph Stalin, in the erstwhile USSR. But ultimately could he stop the collapse of the USSR?
In the US too, state after state, Capital Punishment is being abolished.The whole of Latin American is almost free of this brutal method, but then India still wants to use it at will. We Indians do not look at Britain, Australia or Canada......or almost the whole of Latin America. Some people think that, Capital Punishment or no punishment is the same. Huh!!You will understand 10 years from now what I am saying..........and that too, if any of your near and dear ones get trapped in one such case....!!
But then I sometimes remember, what my daddy used to say too often, "It is often futile to argue in the land of blinds and it is equally dangerous to become a leader of blinds". There are 476 convicts on death row in India. There are people senior to Guru on death row still waiting. This too creates suspicion, as to why Ajmal Kasab and Md.Afzal Guru's hanging was superseded? Also, Uttar Pradesh has 174 people on death row; Karnataka has 61, Maharashtra 50, Bihar 37, and so on. Therefore, what is the way forward? Start murdering these people one by one and overtake, China, Iran or Saudi Arabia? Judicial verdicts are mostly arrived at by a process of elimination and evidence is almost always circumstantial. It is expected that the judges apply their mind and weed out doubt as much as humanly possible.Hence, it is an imperfect exercise by its very nature, in tune with the old adage that "All human activities are imperfect, varying in degrees". So, there are chances that any judgement might dissatisfyone side or the other. Therefore, there are more points of the abolition of Capital Punishment, rather than retaining it. I condemn all STATE SPONSORED MURDERS........AND CALL THEM AS "GOVERNMENTS' HOOLIGANISM" AGAINST THE POOR AND VULNERABLE....!!
Monday, 28 January 2013
Live-in Relationship Vs Marriage
Are we finally seeing the rapid decline of the "old-fashioned" institution of marriage? In a significant ruling recently, the Supreme Court said a long-term live-in relationship was as good as marriage. Indeed, live-in relationships are slowly but surely acquiring a more important status, both socially and legally. What does that mean for a society where matrimony holds center stage? Sandhya Gokhale and Mihir Desai, who have been in a live-in relationship for 23 years, vouch that marriage has more complications than advantages.
They believe that love binds them more than family pressures would have. "Wedlock means subscribing to societal norms, where I will be recognised as someone's wife or daughterin- law," says Gokhale, a Mumbai-based software consultant. Her partner, Desai, strongly supports Gokhale's views. "If we decide to part ways, we can do it without getting involved in litigation or succumbing to family pressure," says Desai, a human rights lawyer.
But the fact is that with legal rights still a far cry for those in a live-in relationship, practicalities still do tilt the scales in favour of marriage. The Supreme Court's bold rulings on live-in relationships and pre- marital sex notwithstanding, the law is yet to recognise a live- in relationship as marriage.
"Though live-in relationships come under the ambit of the Domestic Violence Act and Right to Maintenance Act, there is still a long way to go," says Supreme Court advocate Priya Hingorani. Property rights, and adoption and child custody issues are yet to be addressed, she says.
Live-in relationships do bring with them a clutch of complications, no matter the freedom they offers. Questions arise over what happens to a child born in a live- in relationship? Would an ended relationship render a partner homeless? Says Meenakshi Lekhi, Supreme Court lawyer: "Putting live-in and wedlock at par dilutes the sanctity of marriage. There is no status called 'almost married'. There can't be any ad hocism in a contract like marriage."
There are other pertinent issues too. "A woman in a live- in relationship comes under the ambit of the Domestic Violence Act and right to maintenance as long as there isn't a second relationship involved. The question then would be: Who is in a relationship with whom? If a married man enters into a live- in relationship, only the legal wife is eligible for benefits, the second woman gets none. So between the two women, who supersedes who? That's the debate," says Lekhi.
Antara Mali breaks her silence on father’s illness
[Antara Mali's reaction to the incident, has shoched me. Instead of praising the efforts of Salman Khan and Mink Brar, let's observe what she says: "This may be a publicity stunt by someone trying to capitalise on his ill health and has accomplished nothing but damaged a 35-year-old glorious career".
THIS IS DIRECTED TO WHOM?
And then she says: "“We don't need anybody's help"............Really....??!!
What kind of WOMEN can say such things, is well understood!! Also it can be noted how much she actually loved her father. Actually in Bollywood many things are cosmetic and her love for her DADDY might qualify for the same. What to say about these daughters of illustrous fathers??!!]
Mumbai: Actress Antara, daughter of ace photographer Jagdish Mali, breaks her silence on her father’s illness. Jagdish, a renowned Bollywood photographer was apparently spotted in a semi-nude state by ‘Bigg Boss 6’ contestant Mink Brar, who eventually took Salman Khan’s help to escort him to his residence.
Reportedly, Salman Khan sent across a vehicle and his staff to help Mink escort Mali to his residence.
Mink called up Antara for help on finding her father in such a state on the street in Versova area in Mumbai. Since she couldn’t get through to her, she sought help from the star actor.
However, Antara issued a press statement to a tabloid, quashing the news that her father was an alcoholic and suffered from depression.
The press statement read, “His condition is such that at times, if he forgets his insulin shot, he gets disoriented. At such times opening a simple door latch can be a challenge. This may happen once in six months, the rest of the time he's fully functioning and normal. This is what happened that evening.”
“This may be a publicity stunt by someone trying to capitalise on his ill health and has accomplished nothing but damaged a 35-year-old glorious career. My dad is not an alcoholic but has a chronic liver disorder along with heavy diabetes. He hasn't touched a drop of alcohol for 15 years. He is sober,” said Mali in the statement.
“We don't need anybody's help. I am proud of my father's legacy, he is a truly an incredible artist and has a lot of goodwill in the film and fashion industry,” the Mali added in the statement.
Jagdish Mali had played a pivotal role in giving Rekha the ‘Diva’ status. He had also worked with other A-list Bollywood celebrities.
The governement should now treat these girls/women strictly like they are dealing with the rape accused
The Punjab police reported ten false cases of rape in just one week. Police say that criminal proceedings would be initiated against those who made false allegations. Since the nationwide protests against the Delhi rape case, complaints have been pouring in by the victims of sexual harassment — whether true or false.
The rush to report rape was attributed in part to the strict instructions issued to all districts police officials to take stern action and to be sensitive towards cases related to women and children.
Already, the state top cop Sumedh Singh Saini has shot off an advisory to all the field officers across the state to exercise restraint in sexual assault cases. The advisory read, “While it is imperative to ensure prompt registration of cases and expeditious and vigorous investigation in all cases of sexual assault and violence, at the same time, it is incumbent on the district police chiefs to ensure that innocent persons are not booked or harassed merely on the basis of false allegations and by misrepresentation and distortion of facts. The increase in number of false cases does not mean that we won’t look into these complaints. We cannot turn insensitive towards that. We will strictly follow the law and take appropriate action as per the rules. Those filing fake cases, and giving false information, stands to face action.”
And just today, a news story reports police saying that a case of alleged rape by a former husband of a divorcee was concocted. The woman had complained to police that she was raped by her husband, but police said that the woman not only changed her statements frequently but had registered six cases against her former husband at different police stations that were later proved to be false.
"That Boy was not her Boy Friend": The father of the victim
[If he was not his boy friend, then what was he doing at 10 pm that night, in Delhi, when even dogs fear to go out due to such severe cold? The media first introduced her as a medical student, which later turned out to be BPT. At 23 years, people becomes B Tech Engineers but it is strange that she was still doing BPT. Till the other day, the media said, she was to get married in February, 2013, but now the fathers says, there is no question of marriage...Huh!! What nonsense..!! Also, what is the brave thing she did, except roaming with a boy, at such night? If she had a least badly injured one of the ruffians, I would have called her brave. But alas.......I am sick of media reporting, who changes landscape and story everyday!!]
London: The Delhi gang-rape victim's father has revealed the name of his brave daughter to give courage to other women who have survived such attacks.
According to UK's The Sunday People, the devastated father asserted that he wanted the world to know his brave daughter's name, who earlier was known to the world only as India's Daughter following her sickening gang rape and murder, as she didn't do anything wrong and died while protecting herself.
"We want the world to know her real name," he said.
"My daughter didn't do anything wrong, she died while protecting herself," he said.
"I am proud of her. Revealing her name will give courage to other women who have survived these attacks. They will find strength from my daughter," he added.
The distressed father also clarified that his daughter's friend, who was with her that night, was not her boyfriend but just a very brave friend who tried to save her.
"There was no question of her marrying because we belong to different castes," he said.
"She never expressed a desire to marry. She was concentrating on her studies and wanted a job first," he added.
ANI at its editorial discretion, has refrained from naming the victim for the time being.
[It is unfortunate that the lawyers in Delhi, have perhaps forgotten their professional ethics and is behaving in a shameless manner; when the case of defending the poor slum-dwellers accused of rape and murder is concerned. Will the lawyers have done the same, if for example, a multi-millionaire is involved in a similar episide? I doubt!! However, this is not an isolated case in India, this kind of prejudice against the poor and vulnerable in the society is present all over the world. That is why it is said: A person who does not have "Capital" to appoint good lawyers is more prone to get Capital Punishment (Death Sentence). Shame upon these lawyers in Delhi....!! Also, where is the BJP, MP and a distinguised lawyer, Mr.Ram Jethmalani now, who gave long speeches, when he took up a similar case.......??!! I have placed the video, for you to judge, if the lawyers are doing the correct thing. I feel that every person or any alleged criminal should be given a chance to represent his case and every trial should be free and fair. This kind of professional mis-conduct by the lawyers of Delhi, is a blot to our democracy. Shame!! Shame!! Shame!!]
New Delhi: Lawyers at a Delhi court have said they will not defend the six people standing trial for the gang-rape and murder of a 23-year-old medical student whose case has shocked the country and provoked a national outcry for safety of women.
Hearings are expected to begin on Thursday at the Saket district courts, where the Delhi Police will formally present a 1,000-page chargesheet against five men facing the charges. The sixth, believed to be a juvenile, would be tried in a juveniles' court, but the police are conducting bone tests to determine his age.
"We have decided that no lawyer will stand up to defend them. It would be immoral to defend the case," said Sanjay Kumar, a lawyer and member of the Saket District Bar Council.
Kumar said the 2,500 advocates registered at the court have decided to "stay away" to ensure "speedy justice", meaning the government would have to appoint lawyers for the defendants. Another lawyer at the court confirmed the boycott.
The woman died on Saturday morning after a brave struggle of 13 days to survive injuries that doctor said were so grievous that her body couldn't endure.
She was gang-raped on a moving bus on December 16 and thrown out with her male friend, who was also battered.
