As the convicts to the Nirbhaya rape case were approaching the date of execution of their death sentence which was 20th March,2020 according to the fresh warrant issued on 05.03.2020, three of the convicts moved to International Court of Justice on the grounds that-
- legal remedies/ cases are already pending for disposal before different courts/constitutional bodies in India on behalf of these death row convicts but Central Jail Tihar has planned and is going to hang them on March 20.
- the convicts at different points during the investigation, had pleaded to undergo tests such as polygraph, lie detector and brain mapping, but all such pleas were declined without any justification
- convicts have been treated as “guinea pigs” and have been falsely implicated in the case and it urged the ICJ to order urgent probe into the matter
- the whole exercise, namely, investigation and trial has been carried out with the sole purpose for the survival of the prosecuting agency in India, which is a big miscarriage of justice in India
Further, they also expressed that their legal remedies have not exhausted yet and prayed for the intervention of International Court of Justice and-
- Urged to launch an “urgent investigation” into the possibility of false testimony by the sole eyewitness, the friend of the victim, in the case
- Urged to order urgent probe into the matter.
- Urged interference of ICJ on the ground that the investigation in the case was flawed and unreliable for instance Many facts of the investigation that pertain to recording of dying declaration, recording of statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPc, the medical examination, holding of the test identification parade, the manner and method of search and seizure and the procedure of arrest have been seriously doubtful in this case due to international media pressure.
To this approach made by the convicts to International Court of Justice, former Supreme Court Judge BN Srikrishna said thatICJ can act only if there is a jurisdiction and in this case jurisdiction has to be agreed by the countries. ICJ had no role to play in the Nirbhaya case because of the jurisdictional issue and India declining to be a party to the set-up. The international judicial body could not take up and decide on the matters on which the Indian judiciary has already decided after a thorough trial and appeal procedures. ICJ was not the next court of appeal. Human rights commissions could intervene if there is a denial of natural justice Thus, ICJ has no role to play in the domestic issues of the country and the plea stands nullified.
Edited by J. Madonna Jephi
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje