Former High Court judge SN Dhingra had heard the 2002 Parliament attack case
Highlights
- Judge who sentenced Afzal Guru hits out at those backing his supporters
- Justice Dhingra: "Same politicians could have been killed"
- Judge also criticised those calling Guru's sentence "judicial killing"
The judge who sentenced Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru to death has hit out at opposition members for backing students who allegedly participated in an event at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in his support.
Former High Court judge SN Dhingra, who had heard the 2002 Parliament attack case, said to NDTV that the "same politicians could have been killed" in the terror attack.
"If the group of which Afzal was a part been successful, and many people wanted them to succeed, then those Parliamentarians who are today siding with them, what if 40 -50 of them were killed? The whole scene in India would have been different," Justice Dhingra said in an exclusive interview.
"So do we want to celebrate Afzal martyrdom day since only 15 common citizens died?"
The arrest of JNU students over an event to mark the anniversary of the hanging of Afzal Guru, during which anti-India slogans were raised, is at the centre of an acrimonious debate in Parliament. The opposition has targeted the government saying the JNU case and the suicide of Hyderabad student Rohith Vemula demonstrate the government's attempts to crush dissent.
Justice Dhingra has also criticized Afzal Guru's hanging being described as "judicial killing" by a section of JNU students.
"Judiciary has been given a right to kill. Judiciary has been given this power to kill a person who is dangerous to society. The Indian Penal Code has provisions that allow and call for this in case a person is dangerous. If this is a judicial killing then would you term every jail sentence as "judicial incarnation?" or "destroying a life?" he questioned.
Asked whether the sedition charge against JNU students is excessive, the retired judge said it is the law in India, however archaic.
"If you go strictly according to law, even utterances are sufficient. if utterances must be accompanied by some sort of action inciting revolt, then neither he, nor Hardik or Jayprakash Narayan were guilty. JP also said the same thing and a sedition case was imposed on him. We say it is an archaic law, most of our law is archaic and inherited from the British and other countries."