Yakub verdict: Punishing the guilty is raj dharma, says Justice Dave

NEW DELHI: After the post-Godhra communal riots in Gujarat when over 1,000 people were killed, then PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee had appealed to then chief minister Narendra Modi to observe “raj dharma”, alluding to equal protection of law to all at any cost.
Then Chief Justice of India V N Khare, presiding over a bench hearing a petition by NHRC seeking independent probe into the communal riots, too echoed Vajpayee’s sentiments and said it was the duty of the ruling class to observe “raj dharma”.
More than a decade later, Justice A R Dave, presiding over a bench which also had Justice Kurian Joseph, said it was the “raj dharma” of a judge to award appropriate and adequate punishment to a person found guilty of a crime.
“If a judge does not award appropriate punishment to a sinner, then he is equally guilty of breaching raj dharma,” Justice Dave said minutes after rejecting Justice Joseph’s request for a stay on Yakub Memon’s death warrant in view of the split verdict on his plea seeking stay on his execution.
Justice Dave said, “Raj dharma mandates a king to wield the rod against ‘paapis’ (sinners) even if the king himself is a sadhu (pious person).”
Justice Dave’s disagreement with Justice Joseph was stark. When Justice Joseph requested that a common order be passed staying the death warrant, Justice Dave shot back, “I am not going to be a part of this.”
Brushing aside repeated attempts by Yakub’s counsel Raju Ramachandran for a stay on the execution scheduled for July 30, Justice Dave said, “Since there is a disagreement between the two judges of the bench, the matter has to be referred to the CJI for placing it before an appropriate bench. Till then, there can be no orders of the bench which has returned a split verdict. Let the matter go before the Chief Justice and let whosoever attempt to save this person from the gallows. That bench will be deciding the matter.”
Ramachandran said the CJI would have to take a decision on constituting the new bench and a decision by that bench would take time as the merits of Yakub’s petition had not been argued yet. “In this scenario, there is a chance that the matter will be required to be heard at length for some days. Why not stay the execution so as to allow the new bench to decide the matter without there being any constraint of deadline,” he asked.