I was listening to a discussion between legal eagles in TV. Participants were Kapil Sibal, Soli Sohrabjee and the likes. Sohrabjee was of the view that the confession of a terror suspect (Mind you, law considers them suspects until their crime is proved.) to the police could not be admitted as evidence, unless the inquiring judge is satisfied that the confession was not gotten under inhuman circumstances, like third degree, beating black and blue etc. While speaking about the fellow under custody for 26/11 attacks, the opinion took a different turn as he was seen on TV killing people, so no confession is needed to punish him. Thank God, for making them sane, atleast intermittently.
But, for punishing his handlers and perpetrators we need to coax him and get him to speak wholeheartedly, against his bosses, in a legally justifiable way. Beg him, lick his boot, do more than that, but donot beat that beast. But, this is the framework of law and the police and other security forces have to play within this framework, failure of which would draw strictures and condemnations against them for human rights violations. The police shall operate by the law and bring the terrorists to books.
The discussion went on with arguments and counter arguments for and against a stringent law to fight the terror. My mind stopped going with the arguments at one point, when Union minister Kapil Sibal said that the law comes into picture only at the stage of punishing the terrorists. The message was subtle, but clear. Have our uniformed personnel got it? Hope they have, for they are shrewder than our politicians.
Dear Arun,
ReplyDeleteI agree with the view that law only comes at the stage of punishment.
Strict laws can not be good enough for the people who are even ready to kill themselves for the so called 'holy' cause.
Terror needs to be tackle at the grass root level.