Arguments close in the legal challenge to the death penalty for drug offences

[Guest guest]

Arguments close in the legal challenge

to the death penalty for drug offences

In December 2010, the Bombay High

Court concluded arguments in a case challenging the constitutional validity of

Section 31A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) that

imposes a mandatory death sentence for drug offences upon subsequent conviction.

Currently, two men are facing death for a repeat crime of trafficking in charas

[cannabis resin], after being sentenced by Special NDPS Courts in Mumbai

and Ahmedabad, respectively.

Filed

in June 2010 by the Indian Harm Reduction Network (IHRN), a consortium of NGOs

working for humane drug policies, the petition assailed the law for infringing

fundamental rights under Articles 21 (protection of life and liberty) and 14

(equal protection of law) of the Constitution of India, read with Articles 6

(protection from arbitrary deprivation of life) and 7 (prohibition against

cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment) of the International Covenant of Civil

and Political Rights. Subsequently, counsel for the convict in Mumbai also

filed a constitutional brief and the cases were tagged. The Respondent –

Government of India was represented by the Department of Revenue and the

Narcotics Control Bureau, agencies that design and execute the country’s

drug control measures.

IHRN’s lawyer Anand Grover argued

that – (i) a death sentence cannot be mandatory and, (ii) death penalty

for drug crimes is arbitrary and disproportionate. While the former argument

finds precedence in Indian and International Courts, the second contention is

yet to be affirmed by the judiciary.

Defending the impugned section,

Additional Solicitor General D.S Khambatta maintained that trafficking in

narcotics is more heinous than murder and that in prescribing the highest

penalty for recidivism, the legislature expresses the collective will of

people. He urged the Court to respect Parliament’s wisdom, which leans

towards protecting society from drugs while side stepping rights of those

dealing in drugs.

The matter is now reserved for

judgment.

A record of the Court’s

proceedings as well as pleadings in the case are available at www.lawyerscollective.org

Tripti

Tandon

Lawyers

Collective

www.lawyerscollective.org