The Supreme Court of India’s decision to hold a pre-dawn hearing for Yakub Memon, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 Bombay bombings, was an unprecedented move that captured national and global attention. Memon was set to be executed on July 30, 2015, and his lawyers made a last-minute petition to stay the execution. Here are some key factors explaining why the Supreme Court convened a special session for this case:

Importance of the Case

The 1993 Bombay bombings were one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in Indian history. Due to the gravity of the crime and its implications on national security, the case had significant importance.

Judicial Due Process

The Indian judiciary is guided by the principle of due process and aims to ensure that all legal remedies are fully exhausted before a death sentence is carried out. In this light, the Supreme Court took an extraordinary step to make sure that Yakub Memon’s plea was given a fair hearing.

Timing

The plea was a last-ditch effort made hours before the execution was scheduled. Considering the immediacy and seriousness of the matter, an emergency hearing was deemed necessary.

Ethical and Humanitarian Grounds

The application for a stay on the execution brought up ethical questions related to the death penalty. These humanitarian considerations also played a part in the decision to hold an urgent hearing.

Public Interest and Attention

The case was under intense public scrutiny and debate. There were divergent views on whether Yakub Memon deserved the death penalty or whether he had been unfairly singled out, given that some of the main accused were still at large. The high level of public interest also contributed to the decision for a pre-dawn hearing.

Upholding the Rule of Law

The decision by the Supreme Court underscored the independence of India’s judiciary and its commitment to upholding the rule of law, even in complex and high-stakes cases.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected Yakub Memon’s final plea, and he was executed as scheduled. However, the exceptional circumstances under which the hearing was conducted reflect the complexities involved in cases of this nature and the lengths to which the judiciary will go to uphold the principles of justice and due process.