Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

“Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Judgment for ‘Violating the Principle of Fair Representation and Justice’”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, August 30, 2023 – In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has set aside a High Court judgment relating to a murder case, asserting that the appellant, Niranjan Das, was not given fair legal representation.

The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal highlighted the procedural flaws in the High Court’s handling of the case. “It was a duty of the Court to give a reasonable time to the advocate appointed to go through the file and get ready to assist the Court,” observed Justice Oka.

Niranjan Das was convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court. His appeal was quickly dismissed by the High Court, which appointed an advocate for him on the same day as the hearing. The apex court criticized this hasty process, stating that it “violated the principle of fair representation and justice.”

Justice Oka pointed out that the advocate appointed for Das made arguments regarding ‘common intention’ to commit murder, even though the appellant was not convicted under Section 34 for common intention. “The very fact that such submission is made shows that the advocate was not ready with the matter,” noted Justice Oka.

Niranjan Das, who has been incarcerated for over eight years, has now been directed to be enlarged on bail. The case has been remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration.

The judgment concluded by emphasizing the importance of legal representation, and ensuring that the accused are given a fair chance in the judicial process. “We set aside the impugned judgment...and remand the said appeal to the High Court for fresh consideration,” the bench declared.

While the Supreme Court’s decision has been lauded for upholding the principles of justice and fair representation, it has also sparked discussions on the urgent need for reform in legal procedures to ensure that such lapses do not occur in the future.

This case will now proceed for a re-hearing in the High Court, with both parties given adequate time for preparation and representation.

Date of Decision:  August 29, 2023

NIRANJAN DAS @ NIRU DAS @ MAHANTO vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Latest Legal News