Advertisement
X

'Unnecessary Controversy'

'We are not questioning Mr Gonsalves's integrity as a lawyer and we hope that we can put this controversy to rest so that the work to try and save Afzal's life can move ahead.'

We are deeply shocked by the controversy Mr. Colin Gonsalves has raised at this crucial juncture of the campaign for clemency for Mohammad Afzal. We would like to state that we are not questioning Mr Gonsalves's integrity as a lawyer and we hope that we can put this controversy to rest so that the work to try and save Afzal's life can move ahead.

We would like to place the facts along with supporting documents for the record so as to put an end to this unnecessary controversy.

On February 15, 2003 Colin Gonsalves filed an Application under section 386 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for Addition of Additional Grounds. In this Additional Affidavit Para (c) states:

"Appellant states that Section 354(5) Cr. PC is unconstitutional and ultra vires Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in as much as death by hanging is the only manner of execution prescribed in law and such an execution constitutes cruel, inhuman and barbaric treatment and also constitutes exceptionally harsh and cruel punishment. This section was upheld in Bachan Singh's case on the reasoning that death by hanging in its severity is comparable to any other known method of execution; but this is many years ago. In the last decade there have been tremendous strides in techniques of execution and, the lethal injection for example, is proven to be a less painful method of causing death. For the legislature to prescribe death by hanging as the only method of execution is arbitrary, harsh and discriminatory and violative of Article 21. The Bachan Singh's case therefore on this point is outdated and obsolete and the issue deserves to be looked at afresh."
IndianExpress
"Being in high-security ward of Tihar Jail where it is too difficult to communicate with outer people like lawyer etc., in a week, I have seen a news Through Indian Express daily that my lawyer had Told the High Court on behalf of me that I (AFZAL) had accepted the death sentence and I want only that method/way of killing/hanging should be changed by injecting the Powerful Toxic injection So as to reduce the pain of dying. I object and challenge this false statement which has been actually given by lawyer himself without my knowledge and consent making my whole process of appeal a mockery."
Kashmir Times
outlookindia.com
Asian Age
"In the High Court one human rights lawyer offered to represent Afzal and my husband accepted. But instead of defending Afzal the lawyer began by asking the court not to hang Afzal but to kill him by a lethal injection. My husband never expressed any desire to die. He has maintained that he has been entrapped by the STF. My husband was shocked but he had no way of changing his lawyer while being locked up in the high security jail."
Advertisement
"I was repreented by one Human rights activist Colin Gonzalves. (Advocate) in High Court. I was shocked when I came to know that from news paper Indian Express. That my Advocate has requested the court that AFZAL wants that he should be killed by Lethal Injection rather by hanging. When I contacted From High Security ward of Tihar Jail to my Lawyer He neither came to meet me nor informed me regarding this False request which I never did."
" Legitimising Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment: The Ignominy of the Law Commission of India's Report on Modes of Execution "
"Hanging Afzal Would be a Stigma on Indian Democracy: Afzal's Story in his Words ". [They are also available on this website - just follow the links in the text above or click on the link for Also See at the bottom of this page]
Advertisement

Vinod K. Jose is Secretary, Communications, SPDPR (Society for the Protection of Detainees' and Prisoners' Rights)

Show comments
US