|
STATES: HARYANA
Crime & Reward
The Chautala Government indulges in a controversial bout
of forgiveness, invoking Article 161 to pardon murder convicts, mostly
as political largesse
By Ramesh Vinayak
In a rare acknowledgement
of human propensity to err, the Om Prakash Chautala-led Government in
Haryana is displaying a distinct leaning towards divinity. In its two-year
tenure, the state Government has embarked on a controversial remission/pardon
spree, recommending the release of at least eight murder convicts-seven
of whom faced life imprisonment and all of whom were either convicted
or had their sentences upheld by the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
DEVI RAM, father of 22-year-old Jasbir (picture),
fought a tedious legal battle to bring the killers to book. Of the
four accused, two were released two years after being convicted. |
| |
"Isn't
freeing the politically-influential convicts a mockery of justice?"
|
The "select convicts" have been released
under Article 161 of the Constitution which vests with the governor the
power to grant remission or pardon. According to former state advocate-general
M.L. Sarin, as per convention the provision can be used "only in
very exceptional cases". But for the Chautala regime, invoking the
amnesty law has become more of a rule rather than the exception.
It all began with Sat Parkash and Satbir Singh.
The two were convicted-along with two others-for the October 1986 murder
of 22-year-old Jasbir Singh, then a post-graduate student at Kurukshetra
University. However, both were released nearly 12 years before the expiry
of their jail term, having been granted pardon by the governor on the
recommendation of the state Government barely two months after Chautala
took over as chief minister in July 1999.
It had taken a draining legal battle for Jasbir's
father Devi Ram to bring the guilty to book. But barely two years after
the Supreme Court convictions, Satbir and Parkash were released. Devi
Ram is as yet unaware of last year's release of the third convict Himmat
Singh, who was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. The 65-year-old
Devi Ram is back in court to fight his "second battle"-this
time against the release of the killers. "Isn't freeing the politically
influential convicts a mockery of justice?" he asks.
It's a question the Indian National Lok Dal
(INLD) Government is ill-equipped to answer, but does so with a deceptive
candour. "There is nothing wrong in applying Article 161 to deserving
cases. Only those who can positively contribute to the society are being
given its benefit," says Chautala while stoutly denying the misuse
of the provision.
The Government has also found other ways to
justify the practice. "It is a reformation-oriented approach guided
by the Constitution not political convenience," says Haryana Advocate-General
Surya Kant. This is debunked by Legal Remembrancer and Law Secretary L.N.
Mittal who says the provision is not for reformation. State Home Secretary
Birbal Dass Dhalia is taciturn when it comes to discussing the release
of convicts. "It is a sovereign discretion of the governor and no
one can question it," he says.
Though the exact number of clemency cases is
not known, since June last year when Babu Parmanand took over as governor,
at least five murder convicts have been set free. In the cabinet meeting
on May 24, 2001, the Government recommended clemency for three life convicts.
"It was decided to recommend to His Excellency, the Governor of Haryana,
that unexpired period of sentence of life convict Shriyansh (sic) Kumar
Jain ... confined in Central Jail, Hisar, may be remitted," states
item no. 33 in the minutes of the meeting. The case refers to a BJP leader
from Hansi town in Hisar who was sentenced to life imprisonment for the
murder of a Congress councillor. Interestingly, Parmanand remembers granting
clemency to only one prisoner.
Last week, before the state Government filed
its reply on Devi Ram's petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Kant forwarded a frantic query to the Home Department: is there a policy
on recommending cases under Article 161? "Apparently, there are no
guidelines," he admits.
The Opposition, however, is more than willing
to provide the right answers. "Chautala is misusing Article 161 for
releasing those criminals who are aligned with his party," alleges
former chief minister Bansi Lal. Even a section of the INLD Government
has been feeling uneasy about the use of this provision as political largesse
considering its possibly adverse fallout. "It runs the risk of inviting
more ill-will than goodwill," says a senior minister.
|
METRO TODAY
Web
Exclusives
