Promotees Allowed to Challenge Provisional Seniority List in Dispute Between Direct Recruitment and Promotion: Kerala High Court Frivolous Defenses Cannot Justify Leave to Defend Under Order XXXVII CPC Delhi High Court Candidates Merely Enrolled in Final Year B.V.Sc. Program Ineligible for Veterinary Officer Recruitment: Rajasthan High Court Manufacturing or Sale of Garments Does Not Attract Copyright Protection; Procedural Violations Under Trade Marks Act Renders Prosecution Unsustainable: P&H High Court Ownership Alone Is Not Sufficient to Maintain Eviction Suit; Plaintiff Must Qualify as a Lessor Under Lease Agreement: Calcutta High Court Findings Based on Evidence Cannot Be Interfered With in a Second Appeal Without Substantial Question of Law: AP High Court Chain of Circumstances Broken: Inferences Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Kerala High Court Bail | Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21 of the Constitution: Bombay High Court Encroachment on a Common Lane Gives Rise to Recurring Cause of Action: Madras High Court Holds Limitation Act Inapplicable to Pathway Disputes Reproductive Autonomy Includes the Right to Abort Without Spousal Consent: P&H High Court Access to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 is Not an Absolute Bar Against MSEFC Awards: Supreme Court Refers Key Questions on Writ Jurisdiction to Larger Bench Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted for Title and Mortgage Disputes Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court Principle of Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: Supreme Court Panchayat Law | Mandatory Compliance With Section 34 And Rule 3 Is Non-Negotiable In Resignation Cases: Bombay High Court Quashes Resignation Of Upa-Sarpanch Recovery of Bullet Fired from Accused’s Weapon Crucial: PH High Court Reaffirms Conviction in Murder Case Injured Witness Evidence Carries Built-in Reliability Unless Contradicted Significantly: Kerala High Court Partly Allows Appeal in Murder Case Civil Dispute with Criminal Elements Cannot Be Quashed Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Karnataka High Court Issuance of Summons Under Section 91 CrPC During Preliminary Verification is Without Jurisdiction: High Court of J&K and Ladakh Article 21 Prevails Over NDPS Act’s Section 37 Restrictions in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Once a Property is Waqf, It Remains Waqf Perpetually: Calcutta High Court Affirms No Secular Ownership Can Derive from Waqf Properties Surveillance Without Opportunity to Object Violates Articles 14, 19, and 21: Allahabad High Court Quashes Class-B History Sheets Mandatory Provisions of Order XXI CPC Were Violated, Rendering the Auction Sale Illegal: Punjab and Haryana High 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