Indian justice system and Yakub Memon

India has executed Yakub Memon, a former accountant, who was convicted of 1993 Mumbai bombings -- targets included the Bombay Stock Exchange, offices of Air India and a hotel -- that had killed several hundred people. Memon was hanged in the Nagpur jail in Maharashtra on his 53 birthday.
The series of bomb attacks that had rocked Mumbai in March 1993, killing 257 people and injuring 700 more, brought about The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, an anti-Muslim law, which lapsed after 11 people were tried under it. Ten other people who were found guilty of the attack had their death sentences commuted. Yakub Memon was the only one who was hanged while eight of his family members were convicted of the bombings. Interestingly, Yakub who was lured to India after the attacks had consistently denied his involvement in the bomb blasts during his long trial.
Yakub Memon's petition for staying his execution has embarrassed the Indian Supreme Court, which has questioned its own system by which it had rejected his curative petition ending Yakub's final legal remedy. A two-member bench of Justices Anil R Dave and Kurian Joseph wondered why all the judges who had heard Yakub's review petition were not part of the bench, which had rejected his curative plea on July 21 even though all such judges were available.
The three-judge bench comprising Justices Dave, Joseph and J Chelameswar had in April dismissed Yakub's review petition in open court proceedings after noting: "We do not find any error apparent on the face of record or any other ground so as to warrant interference in exercise of our review jurisdiction."
But the Indian Supreme Court rules in 2002 had laid down that the judges who had delivered the main judgment of the case should preferably hear a curative petition. It was ignored in Yakub's case.
The bench reportedly asked the Indian attorney general: "Does not that make it all the more necessary that all the judges who heard the review petition and were acquainted with the facts of the case should have heard the curative petition? Is it not proper for such judges to hear the case? But in this case, such judges don't get to see the papers at all."
Also, it was reported the bench questioned why a convict could not argue a fresh reason for commuting his punishment if that could serve the ends of justice. "Suppose a convict says I have served 20-30 years in jail. Why can he not argue this as a ground for commutation?"
Not only that, former Indian Supreme Court judge Harjit Singh Bedi said that Memon's voluntary return and cooperation with the investigators should have been taken into account while dismissing his appeal.
It was in fact Yakub's brother Tiger Memon who has been accused of masterminding the attack. Yakub co-operated with investigators and returned voluntarily, a development that should have been taken into account when hearing his appeal.
Not surprisingly, Amnesty India termed the execution as cruel and inhuman. Executive Director Aakar Patel said in a statement, "It is a misguided attempt to prevent terrorism, and a disappointing use of the criminal justice system as a tool for retribution."
According to reports, the convict's lawyers have already said that "the authorities were hell bent on executing Memon" without giving him the right to challenge the rejection of his mercy petition by the Indian president as right to life of a condemned prisoner till his last breath. Most of Yakub's review petitions have been rejected after judges considered them in the chamber without presence of lawyers.
All this shows flaws in the case and the Indian legal system, which many consider did not deliver full justice in the Yakub Memon's case. The reverberations of the case will be felt for a long time to come.