Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: Punjab & Haryana 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