Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.


There has been a lot of debate as to whether the captured TERRORIST of the MUMBAI MASSACRE was entitled to the protection enshrined in ARTICLE 22 (1) & (2) of the CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. If the captured terrorist KASAB @ QASAB were to be both an ENEMY as well as an ALIEN, he would not be eligible for the following protections guaranteed in our CONSTITUTION:-

  • 1.information of the grounds of arrest;
  • 2.right to consult;
  • 3.right to be defended, by a legal practitioner of his choice;
  • 4.production before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest &
  • 5. no detention beyond 24 hours without the authority of the Magistrate.

The Constitution of India does not define these terms and both these words i.e ALIEN and ENEMY concern not merely the guarantees to the individual but also the SECURITY OF INDIA. In any democracy PERCEPTION of the majority is important, but when the perception of the majority is perverse vis-a-vis the constitution of the land, that perception HAS TO BE OVER-RULED.

There is a perception that KASAB @ QASAB should not be given the GUARANTEES that are enshrined in ARTICLE 22 (1) &(2).

Upon examination, it is no doubt clear that Kasab is an ALIEN for three reasons:-

  • that he is not an Indian and he himself doesn’t make that claim;
  • that the country that he calls his own DENIES that he is from Pakistan;
  • that the country from where he claims to come from has NOT RECOGNIZED his statehood nor has any other state owned up.

He is not merely an ALIEN but also STATELESS in the eyes of the International Community. Therefore none can tomorrow claim any nationality to the terrorist and make requests based on a Nationhood for the terrorist. So we INDIANS ARE ABSOLUTELY GUILTLESS ON THIS COUNT.

But the news that the terrorist is a Pakistani, must be based on overwhelming evidence gathered from his person as well as the confessions made by the said kasab @ Qasab. However, since the confessions have come while he was in the custody of the police, the confessions cannot have the sanctity of evidence in the eyes of the Law.

Pakistan is an UNFRIENDLY NEIGHBOUR and we have had many aggressions from their end. In lay-man’s terms a person who claims that he hails from the territory of an UNFRIENDLY NEIGHBOUR can be classified as an ENEMY.

Further as per the Army Act 1950 and Air Force Act 1950 the definition of an Enemy is ONE THAT HATES AND WISHES OR SEEKS TO INJURE ANOTHER.

As per the Official Secrets Act 1923, THE TERM ‘ENEMY’ INCLUDES AN UNFRIENDLY STATE.

As per our own INDIAN PENAL CODE under section 121, Kasab @ Qasab has been waging war with India and he being an Alien, from the point of view of the Government, is an ENEMY ALIEN by his mere actions.

Therefore we do not need to have compunction on the grounds that his fatherland is disowning him and buckle under the fact that THEY ARE WATCHING. Who are they – a splintered state that has less than the population of Uttar Pradesh; has no credible INSTITUTION, whatsoever; which has been ruled by the Army and its cohorts?; and has shown no development whatsoever neither has kept its people happy and secure??- except for the fact that that country holds land mass where Punjabi, Sindhi and Kashmiri (all these are also our Schedules Languages) are spoken, we have no sympathy or connection.

The Chief Justice of India, has reiterated that if the said Kasab @ Qasab were not to be defended by an Advocate, the TRIAL PROCEEDINGS WOULD STAND VITIATED. That is true if one were to go by the existing precedent. But His Lordship must be also aware that the precedent could be distinguished on the mere ground that the precedent relates to a case where neither the facts were relating to an INIMICAL ALIEN, nor was the conduct of that person WITNESSED by so many eyes in India.

In many of our judicial decisions, when we came to sticky solutions, the HIGHER JUDICIARY had invented IDEAS like ABSOLUTE LIABILITY(in the matter of Oleum gas leak case), BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (in the Kesavananda Bharti case) etc., which have stood the test of TIME. Likewise, it is possible for the Judiciary to divest the protection of ARTICLE 22 (1) &(2), merely by interpreting that such loose canon balls like Kasab @ Qasab , who do not fall within the established hierarchy of a nation ( as Pak has already denied his citizenship), by their mere acts of revolting crime could be treated in law as INIMICAL which wud fall squarely within the meaning of ENEMY.

Further the Honourable CJI’s fears that he would be acquitted, seems unfounded, as even in the Jessica Lal Murder case, when the belligerent and astute Ram Jethmalani’s rational arguments were effectively rebutted by the appeal Justice, i’m sure that in Kasab’s case (which is of graver import) whoever the Judge might be, would issue a well reasoned order of conviction.


`

Comments on: "KASAB @ QASAB – AN ENEMY ALIEN." (4)

  1. sir, if a person is charged under any special act, like National Security Act, is there a point talking about the protections under constitution..?

  2. Is kasab not a person who has declared war on India? He is not a member of any armed forces, and thus not eligible for protections under Geneva Conventions.

    I believe he should be given fair trial by a military court.

  3. Vikrant, the following is the stated objective of the NSA, 1980. It is clear therefrom that the ACT is a Preventive Detention Act:-

    “Act Objective: An Act to provide for preventive detention in certain cases and for matters connected therewith. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Thirty-first Year of the Republic of India….”

    The following is the excerpt from Art 22 of the constitution and it rules out the guarantees accorded under clause 1 & 2 for cases under PREVENTIVE DETENTION:-
    (3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply-
    (a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or
    (b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing
    for preventive detention.

    Therefore the guarantees do not apply for persons under PD Acts.
    However it is to be pointed out here that , we r talking of the crimes already committed. Thanx

  4. Hi Atul,
    All WARS are EXTRA-LEGAL and therefore it is never defined and only recognized by the Acts. Therefore to find a definition of WAR in any Act of the legislature is very difficult, even though s.121 of the IPC 1860 talks of waging war, it is not defined as to what amounts to war- because WAR is any act that undermines the very existence of the society and we need sections in our statutes to deal with anything that might have the effect of undermining the very fabric of a nation and its society.
    Kasab is too small to DECLARE WAR on India, but he has committed ACTS which have the effect of waging war on India and section 122 of the IPC 1960 gives us a glimpse of the activities that tantamount to waging war:-

    Section 122. Collecting arms, etc., with intention of waging war against the Government of India

    Whoever collects men, arms or ammunition or otherwise prepares to wage war with the intention of either waging or being prepared to wage war against the 1[Government of India], shall be punished with 2[imprisonment for life] or imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years, 3[and shall also be liable to fine].

    But waging war is not limited to these activities alone, they are the known components of war. As society evolves newer versions of things and methods emerge in wicked minds and are used as tools of war. Hence the definition is OPEN ENDED.

    WAR as a defined concept in the PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, has taken shape only in the last century and The Geneva Conventions and Protocols apply to wars -which are not mere crimes that could be brought under the Criminal Acts of the Nation.

    Kasab is a agent and he has to be punished under the existing IPC, Explosives Act, etc. The point i raised was that Kasab shud not be granted the GUARANTEES under Art. 22 (1)&(2) as he COULD be defined as AN ENEMY ALIEN.

    Further Kasab cannot be court martialled as he cannot be a subject matter of our Army Act, 1950.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: