Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization

"Overemphasis on Presiding Judge's Opinion Undermines Concept of Remission," Rules Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has criticized the Remission Board for its "overemphasis on the presiding judge's opinion," stating that it undermines the concept of remission as a reward for reformation. The court emphasized that such an approach "strikes at the heart, and subvert the concept of remission – as a reward and incentive encouraging actions and behaviour geared towards reformation – in a modern legal system."

The bench, comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Prashant Kumar Mishra, delivered the judgment on August 25, 2023, in a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner, serving a life sentence for triple murder, sought premature release after 24 years of actual imprisonment without remission or parole.

The court observed that the Remission Board had failed to consider other authorities like the Probation Officer and Jail Superintendent, who are "in a far better position to comment on his post-conviction reformation." The court further cautioned against potential biases in police reports, especially when the victims are police personnel, stating that "such biases should not be determinative."

Supreme court directed the Remission Board and the presiding judge to reconsider the petitioner's application for premature release. The court advised the board to make its decision within three months and directed the presiding judge to provide a new opinion within one month.

Date of Decision:  August 25, 2023

RAJO @ RAJWA @ RAJENDRA MANDAL vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/25-Aug-2023_Rajo_Vs_State_Of_Bihar.pdf"]

Latest Legal News