aditya
12:39
📰 ‘One nation, one police uniform’ is ideal: Modi
Prime Minister says he is not imposing his views on States and adds that common uniforms will give a distinct identity to the police, ensure brand recall and quality gear
•Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday mooted the idea of ‘one nation, one police uniform’. He was addressing the State Home Ministers’ conference on internal security issues in Faridabad, Haryana.
•Mr. Modi said he was not imposing his views on States, but it was an idea worth deliberating on. He said police uniforms should have a brand recall just like the red-and-black post boxes in the country.
•“On the lines of ‘one nation, one ration card’; ‘one nation, one mobility card’; ‘one nation, one sign language’, we should think of ‘one nation, one police uniform’. This will benefit the police personnel as quality product will be available. The production of belts, caps and uniform will be on a mass scale,” he said.
•He added that just like post boxes could be identified from a distance even by unlettered persons, a common uniform would ensure a distinct identity to the police.
•Most police forces adorn shades of khaki, a few such as the police in Kolkata, Tamil Nadu and Goa don white uniforms.
Nagaland’s appeal
•Speaking at the conference, Nagaland’s Deputy Chief Minister and Home Minister Y. Patton said he hoped that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) would be removed from more areas in Nagaland in future.
•He added that due to continuous improvement in the law and order situation in the State, the Centre had removed the AFSPA from 15 police station limits in seven districts and the State Police had put in place a special security plan in all the de-notified areas.
•Mr. Patton said: “We are sure that with the situation becoming even better, the Centre will consider bringing out more areas from the AFSPA in the near future and trusting the State government to take full responsibility of the security and law and order in all these areas.”
📰 21.4 lakh TB cases notified in India in 2021: Health Ministry
•India’s TB incidence for the year 2021 is 210 per 100,000 population – compared to the baseline year of 2015 (incidence was 256 per lakh population in India) and there has been an 18% decline which is 7 percentage points better than the global average of 11%, said the Health Ministry on Friday, while reacting to the World Health Organization (WHO) Global TB Report 2022, released on October 27.
•Stating that India had done better in major metrics as compared to other countries over time, the Ministry said the figures placed India at the 36th position in terms of incidence rates (from the largest to the smallest incidence numbers).
•According to the WHO report, an estimated 10.6 million people fell ill with tuberculosis (TB) in 2021, an increase of 4.5% from 2020, and 1.6 million people died from TB (including 187 000 among HIV positive people).
•“While the COVID-19 pandemic impacted TB Programmes across the world, India was able to successfully offset the disruptions caused, through the introduction of critical interventions in 2020 and 2021 – this led to the National TB Elimination Programme notifying over 21.4 lakh TB cases – 18% higher than 2020,’’ said the Ministry.
📰 The death penalty and humanising criminal justice
•As a conservative agency of the state, the Supreme Court of India is ordinarily expected to tread the path laid out by the written text of law and the binding precedents. But there do come some exceptional moments when, either because of inspired leadership or the burden of anomalous operations of criminal justice, the agencies feel free to break the shackles that force it to the conservative frame. It must go to the credit of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice U.U. Lalit that as the 49th CJI of India, he has ushered in that rare moment by taking several bold initiatives to correct certain grave anomalies that have persisted in operation of the death penalty law. Even before taking up the office of the CJI, Justice Lalit had displayed unique sensitivity to the plight of the condemned ‘death-row prisoners’ in Anokhilal vs State of M.P. (2019), Irfan vs State of M.P., Manoj and Ors vs State of M.P. (May 2022), and impart corrections in the form of creative directions/guidelines. Such a corrective line of judicial decisions under the CJI’s leadership has continued in the Prakash Vishwanath and review petition order in the Mohd. Firoz cases.
•The empirical evidence and research findings contained in the Death Penalty India Report (2016) and the ‘Deathworthy’ report (Project 39A of the National Law University Delhi) came in handy to buttress the exceptional sensitivities of Justice Lalit. It is a happy augury that the CJI had the unique opportunity of teaming up with like-minded judges such as Justices P.S. Narasimha, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi, and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
On policies and uniformity
•The focus here is on reframing ‘Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances to be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences’, a decision authored by the three judge Bench (the current CJI and Justices Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, September 19, 2022).
•The decision stands out because of the thrust on the trial court’s death sentencing policies and the practice and desire to elicit, from a larger Bench, directions to ensure some kind of uniformity in the matter. Such a reference to a larger Bench would constitute yet another step in the direction of death penalty sentencing justice reform such as the legislative limitation flowing from Section 354(3) in the Code of Criminal Procedure; judicial limitation flowing from the ‘rarest of rare’ case; and ‘oral hearing’ after all the remedies to the condemned are exhausted.
•Justice Ravindra Bhat’s decision (concurred by the CJI and Justice Dhulia) has summed up the core issue that displays a special concern for the legislative mandate under Section 235(2) conferring a right to pre-sentence hearing after conviction and its endorsement by the full Bench ruling in Bachan Singh; the trial courts and the appellate court’s display of a conflicting patterns of compliances. As an ardent follower of the theory of binding precedents for a cause, Justice Ravindra Bhat did not stop at paying lip service to ‘rarest of rare’ case limitation, but also required the sentencing court to take the trouble of balancing the aggravating factors and mitigating factors, as per the full Bench ruling.
Sentencing incongruities
•With this foundational background and the context of the wide-spread discrepancies in the interpretation of the law, the following observations of the Court are significant: “It is also a fact that in all cases where imposition of capital sentence is a choice of sentence, aggravating circumstances would always be on record, and would be part of [the] prosecutor’s evidence, leading to conviction, whereas the accused can scarcely be expected to place mitigating circumstances on the record, for the reason that the stage for doing so is after conviction. This places the convict at a hopeless disadvantage, tilting the scales heavily against him.” (emphasis supplied). The three-judge Bench decision seems to have gone beyond sentencing incongruities when it observes: “This court is of the opinion that it is necessary to have clarity in the matter to ensure a uniform approach on the question of granting real and meaningful opportunity, as opposed to formal hearing to the accused/convict on the issue of sentence.” (emphasis supplied).
•How is a real and meaningful opportunity to be transformed into reality? What would be the implications of such a ‘real hearing’ limited only to the matters of sentence?
•Such questions need answers that must be given by future society. It is significant that the sentencing lacunae pointed out by the three judge Bench have received a positive response from academics and the media. For instance, an editorial in this daily (September 20, 2022) said: “The Constitution Bench may come up with new guidelines under which the trial courts themselves can hold a comprehensive investigation into factors related to upbringing, education and socio-economic conditions of an offender before deciding the punishment...” Another leading daily, elaborating further on the subjective factors identified in Manoj and Ors. vs State of M.P., said: “trial court must take into account the social milieu, the educational levels, whether the accused had faced trauma earlier in life, family circumstances, psychological evaluation of a convict and post-conviction conduct, were relevant factors at the time of considering whether the death penalty ought to be imposed upon the accused”.
‘Quality’ of guilt
•The euphoria and appreciation generated by the bold initiative of the three judge Bench under the leadership of the CJI might have made a positive mark, but the future shape of the mission to humanise criminal justice will ultimately depend upon two things. The first is the composition of the larger Bench and the inclination of the judiciary to continue in its onward creative path, as the CJI retires on November 8. Second, the extent to which society is prepared to broaden the horizons of meaningful hearing, even to the earlier guilt determination stage. Hitherto, criminal liability is a product of the component of culpability/guilt and sanction/punishment. The consideration of these two components in isolation leads to a disconnect between the wrongdoer and his punishment or sentence. Should the ‘mitigating factors’ influence only the sentence, and not alter the nature and quality of the guilty mind, or the ‘guilt’ that constitutes the stock justification for punishment? How long and at what cost should we continue to ignore the ‘quality’ of the guilty mind of the ‘death row prisoners’ who suffer from severe to mild psychiatric disorders before and after crime (according to empirical evidence in chapter IV of the Deathworthy report?
•Perhaps, there will be some answers from leads given by western critical criminal law scholars who have already begun making a distinction between ‘early guilt’ that is regressive, prosecutory and punitive, and ‘mature guilt’ that is developmental and progressive. A recent article by Professor Alan Norrie, “Taking Guilt Seriously – Towards a Mature Retributivism” (On Crime, Society, and Responsibility in The Work of Nicola Lacey) has covered the trajectory of criminal justice humanisation succinctly.