Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: 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