Petition By Eminent Citizens Pleading Presidential Pardon For Yakub Memon

Keywords:-Mercy Petition- Death Penalty-Eminent Citizen

July 26, 2015

His Excellency,

The Hon’ble President of India

Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi

Subject: New Mercy Petition Urging Stay Against Imminent Execution of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon

May it Please Your Excellency:

This is a mercy petition for Yakub Abdul Razak Memon, who is scheduled to be executed on 30 July 2015 as per the execution warrant issued by the TADA Court.

We, the undersigned, through this petition urge Your Excellency to stay the imminent execution so that the substantive and fresh grounds raised herein can be considered on merits.

A. Preliminary Grounds

1. An International Commitment to abolish death penalty – We the signatories of this mercy petition humbly make the statement that in India death penalty cannot be imposed till such time Parliament of India decides not to abolish death penalty and the reason for the same are as under:

The universal declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly on 10.12.1948 defined certain human rights and fundamental freedoms which need to be protected. Among the subsequent human right documents, the most important are the two covenants adopted by the General Assembly in 1966: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocol and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. India became a party to both these covenant by ratifying them on 27.3.1979. There are two optional protocols to the covenant, the Second Protocol aims at the abolition of death penalty.

Article VI of Part-III of the covenant on civil and political rights lays down as under:

1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No-one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crime.

3. ……………….

4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence amnesty or commutation of death may be granted in all cases.

The President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution of India has the power to grant pardon and to suspend, remit or commute sentence in certain cases. It is in this way the constitution of India permits right of appeal. Sub-clause of Article 6 of Part-III of the Covenant as referred above provides that commutation of sentence of death may be granted in all cases. In the circumstance, we will have to understand as to why “may” has been used for commutation of the sentence of death to be granted by the President. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Deewan Singh Vs. Rajendra Prasad Ardevi (2007) 10 SC 528 while interpretating “may” where powers is conferred upon a public authority coupled with direction, the word “may” which connotes direction should be constitute to mean a command. In India this power of pardon is to be exercised by the President and therefore under no circumstances for empowering the President the word “shall” could have been used in the covenant but it means a command i.e. commutation of sentence of death must be granted in all cases by President, till such time Parliament of India decides that it will continue the penalty of death sentence. After signing of covenant, the Parliament of India has not considered any amendment in the Indian Penal Code for abolition of death sentence.

The second optional protocol to the International covenant on civil and political rights reads as under:

“The States Parties to the present Protocol,

Believing that abolition of the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights,

Recalling Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted on 10 December 1948, and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966,

Noting that Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights refers to abolition of the death penalty in terms that strongly suggest that abolition is desirable,

Convinced that all measures of abolition of the death penalty should be considered as progress in the enjoyment of the right to life,

Desirous to undertake hereby an international commitment to abolish the death penalty,

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1:

1. No one within the jurisdiction of a State Party to the present Protocol shall be executed.

2. Each State Party shall take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction.

Article 2:

1. No reservation is admissible to the present Protocol, except for a reservation made at the time of ratification or accession that provides for the application of the death penalty in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime.”

As regards covenant we may submit that a covenant is a treaty and it lays down a notable step forward in the protection of human rights within the framework of the United Nations and constitutes the basic provisions of International Bill of Rights. The two covenants also demonstrate the way in which the United Nations is overcoming its earlier hesitations about the enforcement of human rights obligations. It is almost an accepted provision of law that rules of customary International Law which are not contrary to Municipal Law shall be deemed to be incorporated in the domestic law.

The plea of enforceability of various International covenant is now no longer a matter of debate but should be considered to be firmly established as a part of international law which the domestic courts are duty bound to give effect to.

2. Present Petition Meets Procedural Requirements

This Mercy Petition satisfies the legal requirements applicable to a fresh mercy petition as per G. Krishna Goud v. State of A.P., (1976) 1 SCC 157para10 and clause VII-(A) of the Procedure Regarding Petitions for Mercy in Death Sentence Cases, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

3. Death Warrant fixing the date of Execution is Illegal

Yakub Memon was not given advance notice of the death warrant hearing and as a result of which he and his lawyers could not participate and contest the issuance of the death warrant. Lack of hearing makes the present death warrant void in light of the Supreme Court decision in Shabnam v. Union of India &Ors, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 88 of 2015 (decided on May 27, 2015).

B. Fresh Grounds on Merits

Following are some very disturbing aspects of this case which make the award of death sentence of Yakub Memon as grossly unfair, arbitrary and excessive.

1. Long Duration of Trial and Incarceration Suffered Till Date

Yakub Memon has served more than 20 years in prison since his arrest. His trial took 14 years to complete. While the Hon’ble Supreme Court used this long period of incarceration as a mitigating circumstance to commute the death sentences of the other 10 co-accused persons, it applied a different yardstick to Yakub. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that lengthy incarceration during pendency of appeal in death cases is a significant mitigating circumstance which ought to be considered in determination of sentence. In the interests of justice we request you to give due importance to this. The government to that extent is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the Supreme Court (See Shanker v. State of U.P. (1975) 3 SCC 851; Vivian Rodrick v. The State of West Bengal (1971) 1 SCC 468);Kehar Singh v. Union of India(1989) 1 SCC 204para 10.

2. Yakub Memon is Mentally Unfit for Execution

Yakub Memon has been suffering from schizophrenia for the last 20 years which makes him unfit for execution. His mental condition has been certified by jail doctors. Schizophrenia as a mental illness has been held by the Supreme Court (Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1 para 86-87) to render a convict unfit for execution. Your Excellency is required to consider the mental health of a convict before deciding his mercy petition, and can summon his medical records from the prison from the time of his arrest.

3. Role in the 1993 Bomb Blasts Conspiracy

Tiger Memon and Dawood Ibrahim as the Main Conspirators

As per the case of the prosecution, the 1993 bomb blasts were orchestrated by Tiger Memon and Dawood Ibrahim to seek revenge for the demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya(YakubMemon v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 13 SCC 1 para 148, 1253). Both Tiger Memon and Dawood Ibrahim have been absconding and Yakub, brother of Tiger Memon, who was not the main actor in the conspiracy is being executed.

Commuted Co-accused played a larger role in the Conspiracy than Yakub Memon: Prejudiced on Account of being Tiger Memon’s Brother

The TADA Court convicted 100 persons and awarded death penalty to 11 persons. In appeal, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentences of all the convicts except Yakub Memon. In comparison to Yakub Memon, the 10 co-accused persons whose death sentences were commuted planted the bombs themselves and played a much more critical and direct role in the actual execution of the bomb blast conspiracy. Several of whom even travelled to Pakistan for arms training. This shows Yakub Abdul Razak Memon who is facing an imminent execution only on account of being Tiger Memon’s younger brother.

Witness in the case

Unlike the main accused, Yakub Memon surrendered before the authorities, a fact which has been confirmed on July 24 by the then officer in charge of the entire operation, Shri B.Raman. Yakub Memon is the person who has provided information about Pakistan involvement. His execution will weaken the case against the involvement of the Pakistan agencies as there are no other witnesses available.

4. Death Sentence of Convicts in other Terror Cases Commuted

It is also worthwhile to note that death sentences imposed on the aides of Veerappan (convicted and sentenced to death under TADA), Rajiv Gandhi killers and Devender Pal Singh Bhullar have been commuted recently by the Supreme Court. While the mercy petitions of Verappan’s aides, Rajiv Gandhi’s three killers and Devender Pal Singh Bhullar were decided belatedly by the President, thereby giving them the claim of delay jurisprudence, the Home Ministry has moved swiftly to reject Yakub Abdul Razak Memon’s mercy’s petition. It seems that subjective factors are the basis of decisions which lead to arbitrary actions.

5. Death Sentence awarded under TADA which was repealed for being Unfair and Discriminatory

Yakub Memon has been tried and sentenced to death under TADA, a special law which was repealed by the Parliament on account of it having been used to target the minorities. The Supreme Court in Vijaykumar Baldev Mishra v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 687para 30 also doubted the legality of prosecutions pursued after the repeal of TADA. Given the highly compromised rule of law credentials of TADA, executing Yakub Memon will perpetuate the dark legacy of this law.

Final Plea

We most humbly request your Excellency to consider the case of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon and spare him from the noose of the death for a crime that was master-minded by someone else to communally divide the country. Grant of mercy in this case will send out a message that while this country will not tolerate acts of terrorism, as a nation we are committed to equal application of the power of mercy and values of

forgiveness, and justice. Blood letting and human sacrifice will not make this country a safer place; it will, however, degrade us all.

                                                                                                                     Yours Sincerely,

1. Justice Panachand Jain (Retd)
2. Justice H.S. Bedi (Retd)
3. Justice P. B. Sawant (Retd)
4. Justice H. Suresh (Retd)
5. Justice K. P. Siva Subramaniam (Retd)
6. Justice S. N. Bhargava (Retd)
7. Justice K Chandru (Retd)
8. Justice Nagmohan Das (Retd)
9. Shatrughan Sinha MP
10. Mani Shankar Aiyer, MP
11. Ram Jethmalani, MP Majeed Memon, MP
12. Sitaram Yechury, MP, G.S, CPI(M)
13. D. Raja, MP, Secretary, CPI
14. K.T.S Tulsi, MP
15. H.K. Dua, MP
16. T. Siva, MP
17. Prakash Karat, CPI(M), Member, Polit Bureau
18. Dipankar Bhattacharya, General Secretary, CPI(ML)-Liberation
19. Brinda Karat, CPI(M), Member, Polit Bureau
20. N. Ram, Senior Journalist
21. Prashant Bhushan, Senior Lawyer
22. Jagmati Sangwan, General Secretary, AIDWA
23. Kavita Krishnan, Secretary, AIPWA
24. Annie Raja, General Secretary, NFIW
25. Tushar Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi Foundation
26. M. K. Raina, Film & theatre artist
27. Anand Patwardhan, Filmmaker
28. Naseeruddin Shah, Actor
29. Mahesh Bhatt, Filmmaker
30. Lalit Vachani, Filmmaker
31. Ram Rahman
32. Vivan Sundaram, Artist
33. Prof. Prabhat Patnaik
34. Prof. C. P. Chandrasekhar
35. Prof. Utsa Patnaik
36. Ritu Diwan, Former Director & Head Dept of Economics, Mumbai University
37. Jean Dreze
38. Pamela Philipose, Journalist
39. Achin Vanaik
40. Adv. Flavia Agnes, Director, Majlis Legal Centre, Mumbai.
41. Parthiv Shah
42. Prof. Irfan Habib
43. Prof. Arjun Dev
44. Prof. D. N. Jha
45. Prof. Kalpana Kannibaran, Hyderabad
46. Indira Jaisingh, Former, Addl. Sol. General
47. Kirti Singh, Former Member, Law Commission
48. Vrinda Grover, Lawyer
49. Prof. Abhijit Sen
50. Dr. Imrana Qadir
51. Dilip D’souza, Author
52. Ravi Chelam, Biologist and Conservationist Scientist, Bengaluru
53. Prof. Sohini Ghosh
54. Associate Prof. Sabina Gadihoke
55. Smita Gupta, economist
56. Prof. Jayati Ghosh
57. Prof. Jagmohan Singh, Coalition Against the Death Penalty, Ludhiana
58. Shabnam Hashmi, Anhad
59. Manisha Sethi, Academic
60. Prof. Ved Kumari
61. Biraj Patnaik
62. Virginia Saldanha
63. Prof.Madhu Prashad
64. Anees Azmi
65. Rahul Saxena
66. Anjali Mody
67. Dr. Nikita Sood, Oxford University
68. Rahul Roy, Filmmaker
69. Dr. Ayesha Kidwai
70. Prof. Harbans Mukhia
71. Adv. Kamayani Bali Mahabal
72. Binoo John (senior journalist, author)
73. Nachiket Udupa
74. N. Jayaram
75. Prof. Pulin Nayak
76. Prof. Kamal Mitra Chenoy
77. Angana Chatterjee
78. Deep Joshi
79. Mr. Tarun Bhartiya, Shillong
80. Ms. Angela Rangad, Shillong
81. Sanjay Karkala
82. Gitanjali Prasad
83. Vivek Sundara
84. Arundhati Dhuru NAPM
85. Sandeep Pandey, Socialist Party
86. Dr John Dayal, Member, National Integration Council
87. Chetan Mali
88. Vidula Ramabai
89. Nandini Sundar, Professor, Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University
90. Suroor Mander
91. Rammanohar Reddy
92. Kiran Bhatty, Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi
93. Laxmi Murthy
94. Aruna Roy, MKSS
95. Rev. Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh, Shillong
96. Ms. Kalpana Kumar, Delhi
97. Asad Zaidi, Writer
98. Dunu Roy, Hazards Centre, New Delhi
99. Sohail Akbar
100. Mr. Napolean S. Mawphniang, Shillong
101. Ms. Gertrude Lamare, , Shillong
102. Ms. Janice Pariat, Shillong
103. Ms. Angela Rangad, Shillong
104. Mr. Tarun Bhartiya, Shillong
105. Ms. Mona Mishra, Delhi
106. Mr. Aflatoon, Varanasi, Secretary (Organisation), Samajwadi Janparishad
107. Mr. Manas Das, Bangalore
108. Ms. Amba Kak, Delhi
109. Kshetrimayum Onil, Imphal
110. Subrat Kumar Sahu, Delhi
111. Dr. Kranti Bhavana, Patna
112. Mr. Taru Dalmia, Delhi
113. Mr. Apal, Jaunpur
114. Mr. Mujibur Khan, Delhi
115. Ms Kanika Kamra, Chandigarh
116. Ms Neelima Goyal
117. Ms Brinda Bose, Delhi
118. Mr. Hossein Fazeli,
119. Mr. Jatinder Mauhar Singh, Chandigarh
120. Himanshi Rawat, Delhi
121. Dhruba J. Dutta
122. Abhinandita Mathur
123. Rahul Saxena, Bangalore, India
124. Muralidharan, Secretary, National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled
125. Ghazala Jamil
126. Sohail Hashmi
127. Prabir Purkayastha
128. Nikhil De, MKSS
129. Michael Noronha, (Mysore)
130. Ovais Sultan Khan
131. Abha Baiya
132. Ashok Chowdhury, AIUFWP
133. Bondita Acharya, Jorhat, Assam
134. Dr.Rosemary Dzuvichu, Nagaland University, Kohima
135. Kalyani Menon-Sen
136. Gita Sen
137. Vani Subramaniam
138. Saheli Women’s Resource Centre
139. Gabriele Dietrich
140. Niraj Malik
141. Javed Malick
142. Kiran Shaheen
143. Dyuti Ailawadi
144. Ramlath Kavil
145. Supriya Madangarli
146. Amrita Shodhan
147. Geetanjali Gangoli
148. Helen Saldana
149. Albertina Almeida
150. Pushpa Achanta
151. Kalpana Mehta
152. WSS Women Against Sexual Violence and State Repression
153. Vineeta Bal
154. Malini Subramaniam
155. Sumi Krishna
156. Ratna Appnender
157. Sujata Patel
158. Chayanika Shah
159. Sadhna Arya
160. Asmita Basu
161. Johanna Lokhande
162. Pyoli Swatija
163. Mamta Singh
164. Ardhendu Sen
165. Parijata
166. Sakina Bahora
167. Juhi Jain
168. Meena Seshu
169. Vahida Nainar
170. Indira Chakravarthy
171. Anubha Rastogi
172. Soma KP
173. Abha Bhaiya
174. Runu Chakraborty
175. Shraddha Chickerur
176. Mihira Sood
177. Nisha Biswas
178. Ilina Sen
179. Preetha Nair
180. Rakhi Sehgal
181. Shoma Sen
182. Greeshma Aruna Rai
183. Uma Chandru
184. Shals Mahajan
185. LABIA Queer Feminist Collective
186. Sujata Gothoskar
187. Sandhya Gokhale
188. Forum Against Oppression of Women
189. Nikita Sonavane
190. Lalita Ramdas
191. Veena Shatrughna
192. Abhi Nandita Mathur
193. Freda Guttman
194. Vinod Mubayi, Co-editor, Insaf Bulletin
195. T K Raghunathan
196. Abby Lippman, PhD, Professor Emerita, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
197. Martin Duckworth, cineaste
198. Shrikumar Poddar NRISAHI
199. George Abraham NRISAHI
200. Mohammad Imran NRISAHI
201. Kasim Sait Progressive Interactions, Chennai
202. Kareem Sait
203. Jai Sen
204. Prof.Praveen Jha
205. A K Ramakrishnan
206. Gitanjali Prasad
207. Rohan Dominic Mathews
208. Amod Shah
209. Shreya Agarwal
210. Anamika Lahiri
211. Rhea John
212. Kiran Bhatty
213. Vanita Leah Falcao
214. Ankita Aggarwal
215. Aashish Gupta
216. Avantika Dhingra
217. Radhika Jha
218. Seema Jha
219. Sridhar A
220. Farah Naqvi, Writer and Activist, Delhi
221. Radha Holla Brar
222. Vinay Kulkarni
223. Veena Shatrugna
224. R Srivatsan KS Jacob
225. Ravi Duggal
226. Indira Charkavarti
227. Sulakshna Nandi
228. Amar Jesani
229. Dhruv Mankad
230. Manisha Gupte
231. Renu Khanna
232. Sarojini
233. Saraswathy Ganapathy
234. Anant Phadke
235. Chinu Srinivasan
236. Ygesh Jain
237. Dr. Mohan Rao
238. C Sathyamala
239. Pallavi Gupta
240. Sukla Sen
241. Veena Johari
242. Ajaya Kumar Singh, Social Activist, Odisha Forum for Social Action, Bhubaneswar
243. Amalendu Upadhyaya, Editor, hastakshep.com
244. Anjali Monteiro, Mumjbai
245. Anubha Rastogi, advocate, Mumbai
246. Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal, Jamwal
247. Apoorvanand, Teacher, DU
248. Capt. Tauseef H. Mukadam, Airline Pilot – Air Asia India, Bangalore
249. Darryl D’Monte, Chairperson, Forum of Environmental Journalists of India (FEJI), Mumbai
250. Devangshu Datta, New Delhi
251. Farah Naqvi, Writer and Activist, Delhi
252. Fr. Cedric Prakash sj, Director, PRASHANT, Gujarat
253. Francis Parmar.Gujarat
254. G. M. Sheikh, artist, Vadodara
255. Gagan Sethi, development professional, Gujarat
256. Geeta Seshu, Journalist, Mumbai, Maharashtra
257. Ghanshyam Shah, academician, Gujarat
258. Githa Hariharan, writer, New Delhi
259. Harsh Kapoor, New Delhi
260. Harsh Mander, social activist, writer, Aman Biradari, New Delhi
261. Hussain Indorewala, Asst. Professor, Madhta Pradesh
262. Indira Chandrasekhar, publisher, New Delhi
263. K.P. Jayasankar, Mumbai
264. Manan Trivedi, Social Activist, Gujarat
265. Manoranjan Mohanty, New Delhi
266. Mitul Baruah, Syracuse University, NY
267. Mukul Mangalik, Ramjas College, DU
268. N.D.Jayaprakash, Social Activist, New Delhi
269. Nasreen Fazalbhoy, Mumbai
270. Navaid Hamid, MOEMIN, New Delhi
271. Nilanjana S Roy, New Delhi
272. Nilima Sheikh, artist, Vadodara
273. Priya Pillai , Environmental Activist , Greenpeace India.
274. Radha Khan, Freelance development consultant.
275. Ram Puniyani, writer, Mumbai
276. Rohit Chopra, Associate Professor Santa Clara University
277. Rupa Gulab
278. S.Q.Masood, activist, Hyderabad
279. Sadanand Menon, Chennai
280. Sanjiv Bhatt, IPS Gujarat
281. Shankar Singh, MKSS, Rajasthan
282. Sheba George, Director , SAHR WARU , Gujarat
283. Vineet Tiwari, Progressive Writers Association, Indore
284. Swarna Rajagopalan, Researcher, Chennai
285. Isha Khandelwal, Lawyer, Jagdalpur Legal Aid Group
286. Shalini Gera, Lawyer, Jagdalpur Legal Aid Group
287. Nandini Rao, women’s rights activist, New Delhi
288. Y J Rajendra, GEneral Secretary, PUCL – Karnataka
289. Irfan Engineer, Mumbai
290. Prof Archana Prasad
291. Dr. Dinesh Abrol

Annexure: Article written by B. Raman, who headed the Pakistan Desk at RAW, as to why Yakub Memon should not be hanged.

Memon brothers and the Mumbai blasts

I have been going through a moral dilemma in my mind ever since I read in the media about the sentencing of Yakub Memon to death by the court, which tried the accused in the Mumbai blasts of March 1993, and his tantrums in the court after the death sentence was pronounced.

Right though the trial, he has been claiming that he was not arrested in Old Delhi as stated by the prosecution, but in Kathmandu, Nepal. This was disputed by the prosecution, which asked for the severest penalty against him and others, who were sentenced to death. All those sentenced to death have the right of appeal to the higher court and to petition the President of India for clemency if their appeals are rejected.

I have been repeatedly asking myself: Should I write this article? Would I be a moral coward if I did not do so? Would the entire case get unravelled if I wrote it? Would the undoubtedly guilty escape punishment as a result of my writing it? Would my article be adversely viewed by the court? Would I be committing contempt of court? It is impossible to have definitive answers to these questions. Ultimately, I decided to write this in the belief that it is important to prevent a person, who in my view does not deserve to be hanged, from going to the gallows.

As the head of the counter-terrorism division of the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), I had dealt with the external aspects of the investigation between March 1993 and my retirement on August 31, 1994. I like to believe that my work, with the help of some outstanding field officers of R&AW, was highly appreciated by P V Narasimha Rao, the then prime minister, who described our contribution to the investigation of the external aspects as worth its weight in gold.

I was disturbed to notice that some mitigating circumstances in the case of Yakub Memon and some other members of the family were probably not brought to the notice of the court by the prosecution and that the prosecution did not suggest to the court that these circumstances should be taken into consideration while deciding on the punishment to be awarded to them. In their eagerness to obtain the death penalty, the fact that there were mitigating circumstances do not appear to have been highlighted.

It was an outstanding piece of investigation by the Mumbai police and the Central Bureau of Investigation, with the excellent help of the IB. The nation ought to be proud of the officers who handled the investigation and prosecution, for their outstanding success in painstakingly collecting all the relevant evidence and placing before the court a watertight case.

The aura surrounding them would have shone even brighter had they taken the initiative in underlining before the court that there were some mitigating circumstances and that keeping those circumstances in view, they would refrain from asking for the death penalty even though perpetrators of such barbaric acts of terrorism deserve the death penalty.

The prosecution was right in saying that Yakub was arrested in Old Delhi. Yakub was right in claiming that he was not arrested in Old Delhi. In July 1994, some weeks before my retirement, he was informally picked up in Kathmandu, with the help of the Nepal police, driven across Nepal to a town in Indian territory, flown to Delhi by an aircraft of the Aviation Research Centre and formally arrested in Old Delhi by the investigating authorities and taken into custody for interrogation. The entire operation was coordinated by me.

He had come to Kathmandu secretly from Karachi to consult a relative and a lawyer on the advisability of some members of the Memon family, including himself, who felt uncomfortable with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, returning to India and surrendering to the Mumbai police. The relative and the lawyer advised him against surrender due to a fear that justice might not be done to them. They advised Yakub to go back to Karachi.

Before he could board the flight to Karachi, he was picked up by the Nepal police on suspicion, identified and rapidly moved to India.

He cooperated with the investigating agencies and assisted them by persuading some other members of the Memon family to flee from the protection of the ISI in Karachi to Dubai and surrender to the Indian authorities. The Dubai part of the operation was coordinated by a senior officer of the IB, who was then on deputation to the ministry of external affairs. Neither the R&AW nor I had any role in the Dubai part of the operation.

The cooperation of Yakub with the investigating agencies after he was picked up informally in Kathmandu and his role in persuading some other members of the family to come out of Pakistan and surrender constitute, in my view, a strong mitigating circumstance to be taken into consideration while considering whether the death penalty should be implemented.

There is not an iota of doubt about the involvement of Yakub and other members of the family in the conspiracy and their cooperation with the ISI till July 1994. In normal circumstances, Yakub would have deserved the death penalty if one only took into consideration his conduct and role before July 1994.

But if one also takes into consideration his conduct and role after he was informally picked up in Kathmandu, there is a strong case for having second thoughts about the suitability of the death penalty in the subsequent stages of the case.

B Raman