Prof Devinderpal Singh Bhullar's fate uncertain

http://www.panthic.org/news/125/ARTICLE/1732/2005-09-04.html
Prof Devinderpal Singh Bhullar's fate uncertain
Prof Devinderpal Singh Bhullar's fate uncertain
Sunday 4th of September 2005
D.S. Gill - IHRO
(KP) - Sikh Panth needs to take up his case once again
Where the judicial process ends, President of any country's jurisdiction begins. In one's march to justice, President is the last resort in terms of the provisions of the Constitution of that country, as we also see in India and Pakistan. Generally, presidents are constitutionally empowered to mitigate the errors that sometimes creep into judicial pronouncements due to certain legalistic compulsions and political prejudices. In view of this, we in Prof Devinderpal Singh Bhullar Defence Committee, representing the Sikh Panth, took up the case of Prof Bhullar with President of India in March 2003. The professor is facing gallows and has become victim of the fractured judicial judgement of the Supreme Court of India. The apex court, more than even the lower courts, took a starkly legalistic view on the death sentence given to Prof Devinderpal Singh Bhullar, in Delhi Bomb Blast Case, based on erroneous and fabricated confessional statement under TADA, as now has been alleged by India and others in the case of Sarbjit Singh alias Manjit Singh who is facing gallows in Pakistan almost in similar circumstances. The only difference between them seems to be that Prof Bhullar is Indian citizen while Sarbjit Singh is accused of being RAW agent who worked in enemy country (Pak) under the guise of Manjit Singh.
Devinderpal Singh was convicted of conspiracy based solely on a confession extracted under torture and repudiated by him. However, his alleged co-conspirator, Daya Singh Lahoria, was found not guilty. In criminal law, a conspiracy by definition requires at least two people. A conspiracy of one- as is the case here where Devinderpal Singh's co-conspirator was found not guilty- is a legal fiction. Moreover, the confessional statement was signed by a thumbprint. For a man who is highly educated, the sign of a thumbprint implies duress. Furthermore, none of the 133 witnesses produced by the prosecution identified Professor Bhullar, while the case was in lower court.
That Amnesty International's opposition to death penalty is unconditional and is based on the facts that every execution violates the fundamental human right to life and the right not to be subjected to torture or any other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as laid down in Articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UN Covenant to which India is a party. The Amnesty International, in its report, while recommending the Government of India to consider certain corrective measures, too, had urged the Government to "take immediate steps to abolish the death penalty totally, in furtherance of UN objective of ultimate abolition of capital punishment." Pending total abolition, AI had further asked the Indian Government to "ensure that the outstanding death sentences should be commuted, including that of Prof Devinderpal Singh Bhullar." In addition, on April 28, 1999, the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNHRC) overwhelmingly voted for a resolution that had called for a global moratorium on the death penalty. India is a signatory to both the UDHR and the ICCPR. Besides, the Constitution of India has enshrined the Right to Life as a Fundamental Right (Article 21). And importantly, the Evidence Act does not consider confessions made before the police officer as valid as has been in the case of Prof Bhullar.
That we also know that death penalty is used by some States to silence political resistance or to eliminate their opponents. And for this purpose, laws such as TADA are used where fair trial is not at all possible. If justice is secured only by an act of killing, how legitimate is the law that sanctions that sort of justice. We all know that God alone can take away life because He alone gives it. Why then, we arrogate to ourselves to finish it off, even though firmly believing that Ultimate Justice lies with God. And to supplement this spirit, Article 51A of the Indian Constitution urges compassion and humanism as fundamental duties. The Constitutional power under Article 72 of granting amnesty is an executive act and not a judicial one. It is also an act of grace, "when it is full, it releases the punishment and blots out the existence of the guilt, so that in the eye of law, the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence" (Ex parte Garland, (1873) 18 Law Edition 366. The reason why the Executive is given such power, says Mr Taft, CJ, in American case (Ex parte Grossman, 27 US 87: 69 Law Edition 527), "(It) affords relief from undue harshness or evident mistake in the operation or enforcement of the criminal law." Thus, you sir, being the Head of the State, should kindly correct, in the national interest, the blunder committed by the Judiciary in the enforcement of criminal law," (such as TADA).
We had earnest­ly hoped that President would uphold the dignity, independence and prerogative of his office and give a judicious and compassionate consideration to the representation, which was filed on behalf of the entire Sikh Panth, including Sikhs living abroad and that he would not allow his steps to falter in exercising compassionately and humanely the sacred and super power given to him by the Indian Constitution to grant amnesty to Prof Devinderpal Singh Bhullar. And that too, when the entire Sikh community has been watching the Government of India's tactics of sending persons like Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh to the gallows and giving ministe­rial berths and offices to conspirators and murderers of thousands of Sikhs.
Pascal has rightly stated, "Power without justice is soon questioned." Sikhs and other minorities have been and continue to be subjected to repression and injustices of many kinds. Your Excellency's wiser and enlightened timely step of amnesty to Prof Bhullar may not only give them a healing touch but may even persuade the governments to change their policies of re­pression and keeping innocent people indefinitely in prison for a long time or killing mere suspects in faked encounters, we had urged the President in the petition. Justice M. B. Shah had acquitted Professor Bhullar, stating that the conspiracy theory falls flat as the "rest of the accused who are named in the confessional statement are not convicted or tried." In view of these facts, we respectfully appealed to the President, A P J Abdul Kalam, to take a politically and constitutionally correct decision of not only commuting the death sentence but also of freeing Prof Bhullar and earn the warm gratitude of the crores of the Sikhs.
But the then Central government led by BJP did not think it proper to recommend the case to the President. The deputy PM, L K Advani was only interested in the unity of Badal- Tohra leaders. After getting united, the Akali leaders also did not put pressure on the government. The RSS and the Indian security agencies too neutralised the impact, created by the Panthic groups here in India, by manoeuvring the leadership of the South Asian Human Rights Group then active at Vancouver end.
Interestingly, the Central government, the Congress, the BJP, including Akali Dal Badal, are proactive for saving the life of an alleged Indian RAW agent facing death in Pakistan, while they have totally forgotten the case of Prof Bhullar, the Indian citizen whose whole family has been victim of state repression. So, the Sikh Nation should once again take up the case of Prof Bhullar as his fate hangs in the balance. The editors can be reached at Editors@panthic.org