The execution of the 1993 Mumbai bombings convict Yakub Memon a week ago has brought about a lot of debate in India. Inquiries have been raised about whether the execution was completed as per the procedure set out by law. Memon’s protection attorney Anand Grover clarifies here why he supposes it was definitely not.

What Yakub’s Memon’s Attorney Said-

When I was approached to show up for Yakub Memon, I had no faltering in tolerating. I firmly trust that the death penalty is flawed, and is a practice that ought to be cancelled.

Yakub menon's death penalty

India’s constitution imagines that all individuals, nationals and non-natives, have a fundamental right to guarantee that their life won’t be denied unless through strategy built up by law. The Supreme Court has prior held that this technique must be reasonable, just and sensible. In cases identifying with a death sentence specifically, all courts are obliged to investigate whether system built up by law has been taken after or not.

Some things to be noted

This is not a negligible detail. Fundamental rights are just secured by system everywhere throughout the world. In reality, it is the separating line in the middle of life and death. In Yakub Memon’s case, the method set around law was not taken after. In the first place, the system obliges that before a death warrant is issued, the lawyers of the individual on death column must be listened. It additionally obliges that there ought to be a sensible hole between the issuing of the death warrant and the date of the execution.

As both these strides were not tailed, we felt we had a decent case. In any case, the three-judge seat of the Supreme Court dismisses that contention on the evening of 29 July. The law additionally gives a man on death push the privilege to record a mercy petition to the senator Member of Parliament or the president of India. This has now been held to be the constitutional right.

All the more critically if the mercy petition is rejected, he must get at least 14 days, to set him up rationally for the execution, to come to terms with God, set up his will and settle other natural issues, to have a last meeting with family… and the privilege to benefit of judicial cures.

Decoded, this implies that he has the privilege to challenge the dismissal of his mercy petition until his final gasp. It is the obligation of each lawyer to do their best for their client, and particularly so in a death penalty case. When we documented a new petition for the benefit of Yakub Memon, in the late night of 29 July, we felt once more, that we had an in number case.

This is the point at which the Supreme Court gathered in open court at 4am. Sadly, the court again couldn’t help contradicting us in light of the fact that Memon’s sibling showed documented a before mercy petition that had been rejected. Then again, this did not consider the way that standards for mercy petitions accommodated the detainee on death line to record a new mercy petition on new grounds. That was what Memon did when he recorded his mercy petition through the correctional facility powers to the legislative head of Maharashtra.

As the representative had no locale to choose, subsequent to the president showed rejected a before mercy petition, he was sure to forward it to the president. Be that as it may, the senator essentially sat on it. This constrained us to send a mercy petition specifically to the president. On 29 July, the day preceding Memon’s date of execution, both the mercy petitions were up in the air.

Not long after the Supreme Court decision toward the evening, the senator, rather than sending it to the president, rejected the mercy petition. The president did likewise that night. Most likely, Yakub Memon ought to have been permitted to practice his fundamental right to challenge the dismissal of his mercy petition? Once more, the Supreme Court opposes this idea. Would the sky have fallen if Yakub Memon was given 14 days to challenge the dismissal of his mercy petition? I would present no.

What’s more, consider the possibility that his test against the mercy petition brought about a substitution. At that point it would have been a lethal slip-up to have denied him the 14 days. This was Memon’s fundamental right. It can’t be relinquished at the sacred place of adhering to a settled date set for his hanging by the sessions court or the way that a prior petition documented by his sibling had been released.

That is the reason I trust that the Supreme Court’s choice has prompted a pure miscarriage of justice. Yakub Memon has been hanged and is no more. Be that as it may, the issues around his case will resound in our awareness for quite a while. What’s more, the last word is yet to be said.