Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Supreme Court Directs Reconsideration of Remission Applications, Stresses the Need for Reasoned Opinions

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has directed the reconsideration of remission applications while emphasizing the importance of reasoned opinions. The Court's observation came in the case of Jaswant Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., wherein the petitioners, who were serving life imprisonment, sought a fresh evaluation of their case by the sentencing court. The decision was delivered by a Bench comprising Bela M. Trivedi, J. and Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

The petitioners had approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking an appropriate writ, order, or direction to present their case for reconsideration to the sentencing court. The Court allowed the petition, instructing the Special Judge to provide an opinion afresh while considering the relevant factors laid down in the case of Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India. Additionally, the State of Chhattisgarh was directed to render a final decision on the remission applications within one month of receiving the opinion.

In its judgment, the Court emphasized the significance of reasoned opinions in remission cases. Referring to Section 432(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court held that the presiding judge's opinion must comply with the statutory requirement and take into account the relevant factors for granting remission. It further noted that mechanical or stereotype reasons are insufficient and may defeat the purpose of the procedural safeguard provided under the law.

The Court clarified that while the appropriate government is not bound to mechanically follow the presiding judge's opinion, it is crucial for the opinion to consider the requirements laid down in Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India. If the presiding judge fails to do so, the government may request reconsideration of the matter. The Court stressed that the application for remission should be reconsidered if the presiding judge did not adequately consider the relevant factors.

Citing the specific case before it, the Court found that the opinions provided by the presiding judge in letters lacked reasoning and did not consider the necessary factors. Consequently, the Court directed the Special Judge to reevaluate the remission applications and provide opinions accompanied by adequate reasoning. It also urged the State of Chhattisgarh to make a final decision on the applications within one month of receiving the fresh opinions.

Date of Decision: January 13, 2023

JASWANT SINGH & ORS.  vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.       

 

Similar News