Report No. 35

230. To be dovetailed into main volume.-

A High Court Bar Association in a Presidency Town1 is of the view that capital punishment should be retained. In its opinion the primary object of punishment is retribution, and one of its purposes is to serve as an outlet for the indignation of the community.

1. S. No. 493

231. Several Advocates are for retention1-6

Many Advocates are in favour of retention7.

Many Public Prosecutors are in favour of retention.8

A number of State Bar Councils9 are for retention.

1. S. No. 161(i) (An eminent member of the Bar).

2. S. No. 229 (Advocate-General of a State).

3. S. No. 143(a) (Advocate-General of a State).

4. S. No. 146 (Senior Deputy Advocate-General and Deputy Advocate-General of a State).

5. S. No. 104(1) (Member of a State Bar Council).

6. S. Nos. 92, 109, 128, 152, 201, 208, 250 and 272.

7. S. No. 318 (an experienced Advocate of the Bombay High Court) 321, 400 (an Advocate who has been a Public Prosecutor and Government Pleader), 402 (an Advocate who is also a Public Prosecutor), 403, 407 (an Advocate who has been a Public Prosecutor), 408, 409, 410, 412, 451, 453 and 466.

8. S. No. 469, (a Public Prosecutor), 471 (a Public Prosecutor), 515 and 547.

9. S. Nos. 116, 132 and 159 (State Bar Council).

232. The Presidency Magistrates, in a Presidency Town1, who are in favour of retention (by majority) have emphasised that the offences for which the Indian Penal Code provides capital punishment have not lost their gravity with the passage of time or change of regime.

Some of them, however, are against retention, on the ground that retention would serve as a revenge by the society and the law should not sanction it, and that if the imprisonment for life actually lasts for the whole life and not for a period of 14 to 20 years reduced by remission, then that sentence too would have an equally deterrent effect as a sentence of death.

1. S. Nos. 116, 132 and 159 (State Bar Council).

233. The Judicial section of the Indian Officers1 Association in a State2 is for retention, on the ground that the deterrent object of preventing heinous crimes involving a high degree of violence is substantially, though not sufficiently, achieved.

We find that of the Judicial Officers or Judicial Officers Associations that have sent replies, an overwhelmingly large number are in favour of retention. These include-

(i) District & Sessions Judges3; and a Chief Presidency Magistrate4;

(ii) Additional Sessions Judges5;

(iii) Assistant Sessions Judges, Civil Judges, First Class Magistrates and officers exercising powers both of Civil Judges and First Class Magistrates6;

(iv) Judicial Service Officers' Associations7..

1. S. No. 549, replies to questions 1 and 3.

2. S. No. 562.

3. S. Nos. 212, 325, 330, 333, 334, 335, 336, 339, 342, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 358, 359, 360, 362, 364, 366, 370, 371, 372, 375, 382, 383, 384, 385, 387, 388, 389, 391, 399, 415, 416, 418, 419, 420, 421, 423, 424, 425, 427, 429, 431, 434, 436, 437, 438, 440, 442, 144, 445, 447, 448, 452,.454, 455, 456, 458, 462, 463, 467, 473, 475, 478, 480, 488, 490, 498, 500, 501, 502, 503, 505, 509, 512, 516, 517, 520, 521, 522, 524, 525, 526, 548, 553, 554, 556, 557, 560, 563, 567, 568 and 570 (District & Sessions Judges).

4. S. No. 549 (Chief Presidency Magistrate of a Presidency Town).

5. S. Nos. 367, 381, 499, 527, 533, 534, 535 and 559.

6. S. Nos. 340, 529, 530, 531, 532, 536, 537, 538, 539, 541, 543, 544, 545 and 546.

7. S. Nos. 373, 374 and 562.

234. A large number of District Bar Associations1 are in favour of retention.

1. S. Nos. 125, 218, 219, 220, 223, 228, 231 (one group), 233 234, 239, 270, 412, 426, 430, 432, 457, 468, 484 and 485.

235. Of the Inspectors-General of Police and Inspectors-General of Prisons of State Governments that have sent replies1, some are for retention.

1. S Nos. 143(b) and 143(c), 263 and 264.

236. Certain District Magistrates1 are also for retention.

1. S. Nos. 286, 491, 508, 513, 555 and 565.

237. Apart from the replies already summarised, we have received replies on our Questionnaire from public men, private individuals and certain Institutions. Several of these replies are for retention1-4.

1. S. No. 95 (a Retired Judge of the Bombay High Court).

2. S. No. 338 (A very eminent public man).

3. S Nos. 12, 138, 139(a Retired Sessions Judge), 145, 151 155, 235, 265, 278, 279, 280, 281, 284, 288, 289, 290, 294, 295, 297, 299, 300, 320 and 332 (a retired Collector and District Magistrate).

4. S. Nos. 344, 357 (a social worker and State Jail visitor), 365, 413, 414, 417, 460, 461, 476, 477, 481, 483, 489, 496, 497, 506, 514, 519, 523 and 552.

238. Those who favour total abolition are few in number.

Very few Hight Court Judges have expressed themselves in favour of total abolition1.

No High Court Judge who has expressed his individual view has favoured abolition, except as already noted under summary of views of High Courts2.

None of the replies received from State Governments or Union territories is in favour of abolition.

Of the replies received from Members of Parliament and State Legislatures, very few are for abolition3.

1. S. No. 187 (Minority view of one High Court).

2. S. No. 187 (Minority view of one High Court).

3. S. Nos. 206 (for abolition except for waging war and treason); 215, 243 (for abolition, but not immediately); 247, 255 and 401 (Member of a State Legislative Council who is also an Advocate).

239. Several Advocates have sent replies in favour of abolition1.

1. S. Nos. 104(b) (A Member of a State Bar Council); 108, 141, 149, 161 (ii), 161(iii), 161(iv), 305 (an Advocate who has previously been a Member of Parliament), 331, 405 (an Advocate who has been a Member of a State Legislative Council) 406, 439 and 474.

240. No State Bar Council has expressed a view favouring total abolition.

No State Bar Association has expressed a view favouring total abolition.

241. As regards Sessions Judges and other Judicial officers, and Associations of Judicial Officers, very few of them have sent replies in favour of total abolition1.

1. S. Nos. 341 (A District & Sessions Judge in Maharashtra), 379 (A City Civil Court Judge and Additional Sessions Judge), 390 (A District & Sessions Judge in the State of Gujarat), 433 (A District and Sessions Judge in the State of Orissa), 443 (A District & Sessions Judge in Gujarat), 446 (A Sessions Judge in Rajasthan), 507 (An Additional District Judge in Kerala), 518 (A District and Sessions Judge in the State of Gujarat), 528 (A Joint Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate in the State of Maharashtra), 558 (A District & Sessions Judge in the State of Madras) and 561 (An Additional District and Sessions Judge in the State of Madras).

242. The number of District Bar Associations favouring abolition is very small1.

1. S. Nos. 227 and 238.

243. As regards Inspectors-General- of Police and Inspectors-General of Prisons and District Magistrates, only one Inspector-General of Prisons1 has favoured total abolition.

1. S. No. 131(1) (An Inspector-General of Prisons).

244. Several public men, institutions and private persons have favoured total abolition. It is not necessary to enumerate them, but a few replies1-2-3 make points worth consideration, and these points are dealt with later4. Some of the replies are from Zila Parishads or similar bodies5.

1. S. No. 479 (A leading Theosophist).

2. S. No. 315 (Dr. K.N. Katju, in a published article).

3. S. Nos. 119, 122, 126 and 221.

4. See paras. 246 to 261, infra.

5. S. Nos. 277 (Zila Parishad in Rajasthan), 282 (Zila Panchayat Raj Officer in Bihar), 285 (A Sarpanch of a Circle Panchayat in Madhya Pradesh).

245. Those who favour partial abolition may be grouped as follows:-

(i) one High Court1;

(ii) two Judges of High Courts2;

(iii) some Members of Parliament; and State Legislatures3;

(iv) some officers of Governments (in their personal capacity)4;

(v) one major Bar Association5;

(vi) one Bar Council6; and

(vii) others7.

1. S. No. 136.

2. S. Nos. 105 and 397, in reply to Questions 1, 3(a) and 6(a).

3. S. Nos. 206, 237 and 253 (Law Minister of a State).

4. S. Nos. 162 and 131(a).

5. S. No. 110.

6. S. No. 115.

7. S. Nos. 107, 133 (a State Law Commission), 150, 376 (Judge of a City Civil Court), 378 (Judge of a City Civil Court), 380 (Judge of a City Civil Court), 386 (District and Sessions Judge), 449, 459 (a District and Sessions Judge), 464 (an Advocate), 465 (an Advocate), 487 (a District and Sessions Judge).