Supreme Court Directs Constitution of Bench to Decide Grant of Remission to Convicts by States

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

The three-judge bench of the Supreme Court directs to constitute another bench to decide on the convict’s premature release. It was to decide whether the convict’s premature release was part of the policy of the State Government.

Brief Facts of the Case

The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. While granting the Special Leave to Appeal, the Apex Court rejected the bail order in 2017. Another application for bail came up for consideration. The report was that the appellant has completed 8 years of the actual sentence and is aged above 75 years. Under the existing policy of the State Government of Haryana, he should be prematurely released in 2019. The Court called upon the state asking if the policy permitted premature release even before the completion of the actual sentence. The sentence was of 14 years in connection with an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

Arguments Before the Court

The state of Haryana indicates that on account of Independence Day, the Governor of Haryana under Article 161 of the Constitution, can grant special remission to certain categories of prisoners. They submitted that the convict satisfied all the stipulations written in the policy. It challenged Section 433-A of the Code by placing reliance on various judgments to support the claim.

Court’s Ruling

The Court accepts that the Governor did not have the occasion to look into other facets of the crime. These include the severity of the crime, the crime’s impact on the society, or the manner of its commission. The individual facts and circumstances of the case were not placed before the Governor while deciding his release. The Court laid down that the principles of Section 433-A of the Code do not apply to the exercise of constitutional power either under Article 72 or 161 of the Constitution.

For this, the Supreme Court directed to constitute a bench of appropriate strength to look into further questions of law. It included whether the Governor can grant the benefit of remission under Article 161, without looking into the facts of the case, as provided in Section 433-A of the Code.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.D

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -