The
gang-rape-of-a-23-year-old-physiotherapy-student carpet bombing has reached the
heights (or, is it the depths) of our polity, that includes not only the
institutions of governance but also their associate outfits, like the Supreme
Court Bar Association (SCBA). I think I can keep this post short, mainly
because SCBA has already done much of my work. Please refer to the scanned
image below, an article in The Hindu of December 23, 2012.
The
SCBA demands the “harshest punishment possible”. It is smart enough not to call
for death penalty by its name. Had it been explicit, its plea would have been
drowned in the cacophony of the blood thirsty calls for capital punishment from
everyone and her cousin – Sushma Swaraj included. But, the harshest penalty now
on the cards for rape is life term and the next rung on the ladder of harshness
is death penalty. Of course, there is an intermediate rung, life term without parole, but who will
pay for it? Hence, death penalty.
“[E]every [my emphasis; please note, no
qualifications] rape case should be treated as the rarest of rare case,”
leading, of course, to death penalty. I would like to refer to an article Executing the neighbor by Nilanjana S. Roy,
The Hindu, December 20, 2012. I will
refer only to the strap line, which goes,
“The popular view [hungry for death penalty] would send many
fathers, brothers and neighbours to the gallows since rapists are known to
victims in most cases.”
Oh
no, the SCBA refers, implicitly, only to those cases that gain public traction!
The headline case here has gone virally public. Ergo …
“[T]he
Evidence Act has to be amended to treat the statement or affidavit of the
victim girl to be admissible without cross-examination [my emphasis].” This
asserts that in rape cases, you are guilty if you are accused, and you have no
option but to be led to the gallows. Good for slaking the blood thirst of the society.
“All
rape cases should be decided by a Special Fast Track Court consisting of two
judges of whom one should be a woman.” I have a simple comment – it would have
been better had SCBA included Due Process
anywhere in this statement/demand.
“A
group of lawyers … held a demonstration on the lawns of the Supreme Court,” and
you have, thanks to this post, been a witness to the wisdom of this group. I
prefer to be wisdom-deficient.
Raghuram
Ekambaram
