Judging Terrorism, Counterterrorism and the Rule of Law

By Kavya Shah ( Del of Agence France-Presse (AFP) )

The Indian Special Commission on Capital Punishment (ISCCP) committee focuses on a crisis that occurred in 2011, the parliament attack and the execution of Afzal Guru. The focus of this conflict was coming to a consensus on whether he received legal and judicial representation and whether the process was justifiable.

The committee also further discussed the deaths of security personnel during the parliament attack and the solemnity of this execution as a threat to India democracy principles. 

Gopal Subramium debated that not only the person to “pull the trigger” should be held guilty but those who planned, motivated and put the idea in the person's mind should also be held accountable. 

After that the committee investigated the interrogation of Afzal Guru by the Kashmiri Police which was held at the Shrinagar police station. It was said that the questioning lasted about “six hours” and Guru showed signs of stress, hesitation and physical fatigue. Some argued that it may have been due to the long time parameters while some countered that he may be guilty of something darker. It was alleged that Afzal was tied to a chair with the rope, which was a commonly used method by the judicial system. Although, it is important to note: he was reported to be seen with bruises after the confrontation. It was stated that thorough security checks were conducted before as well as after. There was evidence for upholding credibility and accountability within the interrogation and there was a camera recording video footage throughout the interrogation. In addition, the ISCCP discussed the absence of a lawyer even when the Kashmiri Police permitted Afzal to have one. One of the other crucial factors delegates examined was being overwhelmed by high political factors which may have - or almost certainly may have - played a big role in his uncertain and ambivalent responses. 

Another critical issue that partook in committee was the leaking of confidential information to the press. Many members such as Gopal Krishna Gandhi and Justice V.R Krishna Iyer argued that anonymous sources shall be accurately verified and confidential documents must be handled carefully and safe guarded at all costs. Similarly, the delegates of the committee acknowledged the significance of the press exposing the reality in order to hold authorities accountable. It was later revealed that one of the most active participants of discussions was behind the leak. Gopal Subramium. Delegates argued with each other in agitation and infuriation, while some still had their jaws dropped due to the disbelief caused by betrayal from their fellow ally. While conflict erupted like a blazing volcano, Gopal Subramium claimed that whatever he committed was for the growth of India.

When the committee was buzzing with incredulity, a crisis update left the committee speechless. Yakub Memon was convicted in connection with the 1993 Bombay bombings. His case involved questions about terrorism, the death penalty, and the question of whether the State should negotiate with a convicted person for information about another suspect, Tiger Memon. Both cases therefore became examples in debates for how the government can deal with terrorism while still following constitutional and legal protections. They were also controversial because both involved capital punishment and intense public and political debate. Yakub Memon offered to disclose his brother’s location on one condition, which was that he should be released from prison as he does not deserve to be behind bars. One argument believed that Yakub Memon is a criminal himself and therefore cannot be trusted and while the other believed him when he provided information that Kiran Bedi opposed such a deal. Although the others argued that if they were to receive the location of Tiger Memon, who is more accountable for the crime, they could resort to violence. To add on, the committee also discussed how India became divided between those who believed “no deals with criminals” and those who believed that bringing a major terrorist suspect home was more important.

The committee concluded that national security is extremely important, but it must operate within the Constitution and the law. Terrorists and criminals must be held accountable, but investigations and interrogations must also respect legal safeguards. The committee stressed the importance of evidence, verification, due process, and responsible reporting, especially when dealing with confidential information and politically sensitive cases.