Bhullar's execution is legally flawed, morally incorrect: Amnesty International

This week, the Supreme Court confirmed the death penalty for Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar and refused to entertain his petition seeking a review of the April 12 judgment. But in a new attempt to stop the death sentence from being carried out, Amnesty International has called for ‘Urgent Action’ on the Bhullar case, as well as the death sentences given to two other prisoners Shivu and Jadeswamy, whose mercy petitions were rejected after the two were sentenced for rape and murder. Today morning, the courts decided to stay Shivu and Jadeswamy’s executions, after Shivu attempted to commit suicide in jail.The SC has rejected the review petition for Bhullar, but no date has been fixed for his execution as yet. However, as all legal recourse has been exhausted in the case, there is fear of an imminent execution and therefore Amnesty International’s urgent appeal. [caption id=“attachment_1047963” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Devinder Singh Bhullar. PTI image[/caption] Bhullar was sentenced in 2001 by a trial court for plotting terror attacks on Punjab Senior Superintendent of Police Sumedh Singh Saini in 1991 and Youth Congress leader M.S Bitta in 1993, in which nine people were killed. Bhullar’s case, as well as those of Shivu and Jadeswamy, are not being intervened in by the organisation for purely humanitarian reasons. Amnesty International, as well as other human rights groups (both Indian and international) have repeatedly pointed out the legal inconsistencies that plague both these cases. “He (Bhullar) was arrested under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), a law that contained provisions incompatible with international fair trial standards, and had no access to a lawyer during his initial detention and trial,” says a statement by Amnesty International. “He was found guilty on the basis of a “confession” to the police which he later retracted, claiming it was made under police pressure. In March 2002, the Supreme Court upheld his death sentence, though one of the three judges had found him not guilty, saying there was no evidence to convict him.” Besides this, the organisation has pointed out that Bhullar has been receiving treatment at a psychiatric facility, and a medical board has reportedly stated that he is suffering from severe depression and shows symptoms of psychosis and suicidal tendencies. “International standards on the use of the death penalty prohibit the use of capital punishment against people with mental disability,” points out the statement. In the case of Shivu and Jadeswamy, their mercy petitions were rejected by the President this month. They were sentenced to death in July 2005 for the rape and murder of a girl in 2001. Not only were “the circumstances of the convicts were not considered for reducing the death penalty” (as the Supreme Court said in November 2012, but Jadeswamy was also reportedly a minor at the time of the crime. Firstpost spoke to Divya Iyer, a senior researcher at Amnesty International, who is based in Bangalore. One of the issues she works on is the death penalty in India, and Iyer has monitored these three cases closely, as well as those of the 17 other convicts whose appeal for commutation on grounds of inordinate delay on death row will be heard by the Supreme Court on October 22. “The Sangeet judgment delivered in November 2012 notes that in the case of Shivu and Jadeswamy, the circumstances of the convicts were not taken into account as was laid down by the landmark Bachan Singh judgment. “With Jadeswamy, the only thing that was said was that he was of ‘young’ age. He wasn’t just young, he was a juvenile, being 17 years of age at the time of committing the offence. According to law, you cannot execute an accused who was a minor at the time of the crime.” In Bhullar’s case, the legal inconsistencies are many. You can read the whole list provided by Amnesty International here. Below are some relevant excerpts: “He (Bhullar) was arrested at the New Delhi Airport in January 1995 under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), a law that subsequently lapsed and contained provisions incompatible with international human rights law, including the right to a fair trial,” says the statement. “Bhullar had no access to a lawyer during his initial detention and trial. He was found guilty on the basis of an unsubstantiated confession made to the police, which he later retracted, claiming it was a false confession made under police pressure. He has maintained his innocence throughout.” “The review petition for Bhullar also went back to the same bench that gave the order,” says Iyer. “That’s an unfortunate and purpose-defeating practice.” Another problem, which was also pointed out by Iyer, is that one of the three judges had found Bhullar to be not guilty, after he concluded that there was no evidence to convict him, and a confession made under police pressure was not enough for a death sentence. “The same Supreme Court judges, again by a 2 to 1 majority, dismissed a review petition in December 2002. The two judges in favour of the death sentence observed that the non-unanimous sentence could be a factor to be considered in the mercy petition process. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar’s petition was rejected by the President in May 2011, eight years after the request was filed,” says the Amnesty International statement. Iyer points out another problem with the Bhullar sentencing. “Bhullar has been receiving treatment at a psychiatric facility, and a medical board, which was instituted by the Delhi government on the orders of the Supreme Court, has said that he is suffering from severe depression and shows symptoms of psychosis and suicidal tendencies,” says Iyer. “The jail manual of Tihar states that you can’t execute a person who isn’t of sound physical and mental health. Not only that, international standards prohibit the use of capital punishment against people with mental disabilities.” Finally, as Iyer says, rejections of mercy petitions in India are increasingly veiled in secrecy. Though international laws require notifying the convicted, his or her family as well as lawyers in case interventions are needed, death sentences in India are often carried out furtively. “In the case of Maganlal Barela, whose mercy petition got rejected by the President recently, human rights lawyers had to move court in the middle of the night,” remembers Iyer. “The PUDR activists had gone to the residence of the Chief Justice on Wednesday and the CJI had around midnight on Wednesday night stayed the execution for a day. The order was immediately conveyed to jail authorities in Jabalpur,” says a report in IBNLive. Iyer also points out that Jadeswamy is “poor and illiterate.” “He wasn’t even aware of his rights.”  It has also been said in the Shivu and Jadeswamy court proceedings that the proof provided was purely circumstantial. “We are hoping that their execution gets stayed, and their case be heard along with the other death row convicts on October 22,” says Iyer.