Yakub Memon's victims also deserve justice

It is indeed an irony that many sections of the print and electronic media found Yakub Memon, the man who conspired, planned and executed the murder of 257 people and wounded over 700 others in a terrorist act carried out in Mumbai in 1993, a far worthier candidate for the headlines in the last week of July than Bharat Ratna APJ Abdul Kalam, who passed away suddenly on July 27.

Such was the concern of some individuals for the civil rights of this mass murderer, that several benches of the Supreme Court had to meet several times just to ensure that justice was seen to be done to him.But, the mad scramble seen last week to grab the attention of the apex court and to somehow stall the execution of Yakub Memon has done nothing to enhance the confidence of citizens in the judicial process. The manner in which some individuals have used and misused the legal process just to defend a terrorist and the tedious 22 years taken by the judicial system to accord justice to the victims of this monstrous crime raises questions about the ability of the Indian state to protect its citizens and to bring terrorists to book.

Sadly, the attack on the court continues despite the extraordinary level to which it went in order to ensure justice in this case. Those who are critical of the death sentence awarded to Yakub Memon seem to forget that the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence awarded to 10 other accused in this case to life imprisonment, but refused to entertain the plea of Yakub Memon, despite several and even unprecedented efforts made by him and his lawyers to get the court to reconsider its decision. 

The court’s opinion clearly establishes that it found no mitigating circumstances in his case. Disposing of the appeal made by Yakub Memon against the death sentence awarded to him by the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Court on March 21, 2013, a Supreme Court Bench repeatedly referred to him as one of the “masterminds”, a “kingpin” and the “driving spirit” behind the horrific plan to execute serial blasts in heavily crowded areas of Mumbai and to cause massive death and destruction.

In this judgement, the court said that Yakub Memon had played a key role in the planning and execution of the terrorist attacks. While determining his degree of responsibility for the series of blasts that occurred on March 12, 1993, the court said that the country’s legal system had “always emphasised that the sentence shall reflect the relative significance of the accused’s role”. 

It held that Yakub Memon, the younger brother of Ibrahim ‘Tiger’ Memon, who was one of the masterminds behind the terrorist strikes, was in a position of authority and he played a significant role in the context of the blasts and this was important in order to determine the sentence awarded to him. It found the confessional statements of co-accused established “the dominating position” of Yakub Memon, as compared to the 10 other appellants. This was established for the following reasons. 

First, in their confessional statements, various co-accused state that Tiger Memon has instructed them to stay in touch with Yakub Memon for further instructions, which meant that Yakub Memon had assumed the role of Tiger Memon in India during his absence. Second, Yakub Memon’s role extended to handling 56 bags of explosives and ensuring their safe keeping. Third, Yakub Memon was actively involved in hawala transactions for the purpose of facilitating the blasts. Fourth, he acquired tickets both for Dubai and Pakistan for transporting the other appellants to the respective places for the purpose of training and coaching to carry out the 

terrorist operation.

Therefore, the court held that Yakub Memon’s deeds cannot be viewed as distinct from the act of Tiger Memon. “They were the architects of the blasts”. Yakub Memon was a ‘driving sprit’ and he held a dominant position and had an effective control over the blasts which were carried out at the discretion of the masterminds. However, the others “were mere subservient subordinates whose knowledge and acquaintance might have been restricted”.Apart from all this, what should be most worrying for those who long for justice in cases of terrorism, is the torturous route that this case has taken and the manner in which convicted terrorists are allowed to play around with the system. 

The serial blasts took place in Mumbai on March 12, 1993. A preliminary charge-sheet was filed in November, 1993. The trial commenced in April, 1995 and the examination of 684 prosecution witnesses ended in October, 2000. The trial finally concluded in September, 2003, 10 and a half years after the terrorist attack on Mumbai and the judge eventually pronounced the verdict three years later in September, 2006. 

Five years later, the Supreme Court began hearing the appeals against the Tada Court verdict and on March 21, 2013 it upheld the death sentence awarded to Yakub and commuted the death sentence of 10 convicts. A year later, in May 2014, the President rejected Yakub Memon’s mercy petition, however the Supreme Court stayed the execution of Yakub Memon in response to the plea that the review petitions must be heard in open court instead of chambers. Thereafter, in April, Yakub Memon’s review petition seeking review of the Supreme Court judgement of March 2013 was dismissed by the court. 

Then came the curative petition, which was dismissed on July 21. But, the story did not end here. It was followed by another petition before the apex court against the death warrant, another mercy petition to the Maharashtra Governor, yet another mercy petition to the President which was turned down and finally the midnight drama outside the Chief Justice’s residence leading to yet another Supreme Court hearing in the wee hours of the morning of July 30.

What do the bleeding hearts in the media and civil society, who see the hanging of Yakub Memon as a miscarriage of justice, have to say about the legal and judicial process that took 22 years to provide justice to the victims of this horrendous crimeIJ Should we allow a small bunch of lawyers and activists to intimidate the State and the judicial system and stymie justice just so that a mass murderer is convinced that the country’s system is sound and fairIJ

If the judicial process takes two decades or more to accord justice to victims of terrorist acts and if terrorists are allowed to use and misuse the process in this fashion, how are we going to deter terroristsIJ