'The conclusion of the hearing will serve the interests of all concerned...'

Three judges are required to dispose of the leave application. Although there are as many as seven judges in the Appellate Division, only one of them can hear the leave petition. This is because, six other honourable judges expressed their embarrassment to hear the case on previous occasions. So, there has to be two more judges in the Appellate Division to dispose of the leave application in the first place. When these two vacancies will be filled up is everyone's guess. Obviously I am not in the position to say when that will happen. It depends on multiple considerations. So, for the time being all I can say is that we have to wait and see. Thrse is obviously a general aspiration that the leave petition should be disposed of as soon as possible.

I am of the view that conclusion of the hearing will serve the interest of all concerned. Keeping condemned prisoners in the waiting with uncertainty is obviously not desirable. The constitution makes provision for appointment of judges on adhoc basis. That is one of the avenues by following which the hearing can be brought forward. Indefinite delay will serve nobody's purpose. It is not conducive to anybody not even to those who have been sentenced by the High Court Division.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

This sort of stalemate, to my knowledge, did not take place in the past. I believe it is this sort of a situation which the draftsmen of the constitution had in their mind whom they inducted the said special provision for adhoc appointment of judge. It would be wrong to equate this case with other cases, because in this case not only the reigning president of the time was assassinated but the person who was assassinated was in fact the architect of the nation. Everybody must be treated equally through the eye of law. The same rule of evidence and procedure should be applicable to all citizens. There was no deviation from this rule during the trial stage and the appellate stage of this case.

But now for various reasons, it is taking more time than other cases normally do. The principle of equality, as embodied in the constitution, dictates that this case should take no longer time than the other cases do. If we look abroad we can see that trial for the assassination of the Heads of State or of the government always attract general public concern, interest, curiosity and attention.

The trials of the killers of Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, John F Kennedy, Anwar Sadat are some of the examples.

Special significance

The initiation of this case conveys an undistorted message to the effect that no heinous offence can go unpunished even by way of passage of time, and that I believe, is the most important significance of this case. It must be remembered that there is no period of limitation in criminal law and hence an offender can be brought to book at any time -- even after elapse of decades as happened in the case of Ikeman. The message that nobody can get away by committing an offence, shall make possible future adventurers to think thrice before embarking on a similar mission.

Shamsuddin Manik Chowdhury, Bar-at-Law, is a former Deputy Attorney General and Advocate, Supreme Court.