Afzal Introduction

You Cannot Hang a Man who has not got a FAIR TRIAL!

Muhammad Afzal's case is not only about the life or death of one individual; it is an issue of enforcing the rule of law. The Judgment in Afzals case appears to contradict the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in several cases from Bashira to Suk Das, defining the scope of the right to legal representation.

This decision has long-term consequences on social security and social justice for people from marginalized sections of society, who are more often than not on the receiving end of police and state violence and arbitrariness. The fine line that separates a democracy from autocratic forms of governance is the guarantee of fair trial which is the corner stone of the rule of law. These guarantees to detainees and under trials secure the ordinary citizen of India against the arbitrary denial of life and liberty and must be treated as sacrosanct to our sovereignty.

The question that then emerges to be answered by all of us, from the citizens of India to the keepers of our Constitution, is our collective conscience really satisfied that Muhammad Afzal's right to life has been denied in accordance with the procedure established by law? Or is there some scope for reconsideration of what the parameters of procedure established by law are, and what they ought to be?