There is no question that the 1993 bomb blasts were a hideous crime. However, there is also the question if Yakub Memon's crime, of being a bit player in a terror conspiracy - the accountant at that - is really a crime that fits the idea of the "rarest of the rare". You do not need to be a strict abolitionist when it comes to the death penalty to raise these questions - after all, they were not raised when Ajmal Kasab, the convicted 26/11 attacker, was executed. This case, instead, reflects the concerns raised when Afzal Guru, convicted of participating in the conspiracy to attack Parliament in 2001, was executed. In both the Parliament and the bomb blast cases, relatively minor cogs were hanged -- and, remember, these were two of the four people hanged by the Indian state in the past 13 years. Genuine questions therefore can and should be asked about how the death penalty is being applied. Does it reflect the nature of the overall crime? Is this in keeping with the "rarest of the rare" concept? Death penalty opponents will point out that such questions are always being asked about the application of the penalty: there is much subjectivity attached to a decision that is claimed to be objective. And others will worry that, when subjectivity is perceived in such high-profile decisions, there are political implications that could attack the foundations of the Indian state. This was the fear that many felt when they saw the thousands-strong crowd at Memon's funeral.
Certainly, there is something wrong when the Indian judiciary seems intent in filling out death row even when the judicial system never seems to get around to carrying out these sentences. According to data published by the National Crime Records Bureau, only three people were hanged between 2004 and 2013; but 1,303 capital-punishment verdicts were handed out in those years. Worse, more than twice that number of death sentences were commuted to life in prison. Clearly this is a systemic problem. The number of commutations, in addition, calls into question the assumptions underlying the original judgments. The entire death penalty debate needs to be revisited taking these basic questions into account.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
