MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |    

"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"]

Similar News