CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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.       

 

Latest Legal News