What were Dr. Abdul Kalam views on Death Penalty? - Factly
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
August 28, 2015
The hanging of the 1993 Mumbai blasts accused Yakub Memon & the untimely death of the Former President Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam, both happened around the same time. Dr. Kalam’s views on death penalty, as expressed in his letter to the Law Commission, in response to the Commission’s consultation paper on Capital Punishment were widely discussed during this time.
The hanging of the 1993 Mumbai blasts accused Yakub Memon & the untimely death of the Former President Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam, both happened around the same time. These incidents led to a discussion around not only death penalty but also on how different Presidents dealt with mercy petitions during their term in office.  Of more interest were Dr. Kalam’s views on the death penalty, since he disposed only two mercy petitions during his term in office. Factly obtained a copy of the letter written by Dr. Kalam to the Law Commission of India, in response to the Commission’s consultation paper on Capital Punishment.
Law Commission’s Consultation Paper
The Law Commission of India, in May 2014 has put out a consultation paper on Capital Punishment and asked for suggestions from people. In the consultation paper, the commission asked various questions including the following,
Dr. Kalam’s submission to the Law Commission
In response to the public notice, Dr. Kalam forwarded his views on death penalty to the Law Commission. He sent excerpts from his book ‘Turning Points: A Journey Through Challenges’ to be considered his views on the subject.
He went on to quote from his book and said that confirming the capital punishment awarded by the courts was one of the more difficult tasks as a President. He also said that a substantial number of mercy petitions were pending for many years and it is one task no President would be happy about. The letter quotes from the book as Dr. Kalam saying, “I thought I should get all these cases examined from a normal citizen’s point of view in terms of the crime, intensity of the crime, and the social and financial status of the individuals who were convicted and awarded capital punishment.” He said that almost all the pending cases had a social and economic bias.
He went on to say that the study of all pending petitions gave him an impression that we were punishing the person who was least involved in the enmity and who did not have direct motive for committing the crime. He also said that there was one case in which he confirmed the death sentence because he found the lift operator had in fact committed the crime of raping and killing a girl without doubt.
He also said that courts, while hearing the capital punishment cases should alert the law enforcing authorities to intelligently find out the source of sustenance of the individual who is being punished and that of his family. He said that this kind of analysis might lead to finding out the real person and motive that led to the crime.
As concluding remarks, he said that we are all creations of God and that he was not sure a human system or a human being is competent to take away a life based on artificial and created evidence.