Supreme Court: Called upon to determine the appropriate Government and possibility of further remission of convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case, the bench comprising P. Sathasivam, CJI and Ranjan Gogoi, and N.V. Ramana, JJ, took cognizance of some major questions of law raised in the present case and their impact on future convictions as well as remissions, in ruling that since the case required an extensive validation of the three-Judges Bench verdict in Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 and also the Bhagirath v. Delhi Administration, (1985) 2 SCC 580, as cited by the opposite parties in support of their arguments, it would only be proper for the Court to refer the issues to a five-Judges Constitutional Bench, thereby referring the major determinative issues of appropriate Government (Central or State of Tamil Nadu), further remission, primacy of power and suo motu exercise by the State, to a Constitutional Bench stating the criticality of referred issues in deciding the future procedure of awarding sentences in the criminal justice system. The trial in the present case majorly results from a previous death sentence awarded to 4 of the convicts followed by an intervention of the Madras High Court, seeking remission. As such, the Court extensively highlighted the conflict of jurisdiction in allowing further remission, if at all possible, between the Central and the State Governments, especially when a previous remission had already commuted death sentence to life imprisonment for the seven convicts in the case and that the relevant provisions of the Constitution allowed for further remitting only after a consultation with the Central Government, which further led to a confusion as to concurrence, if so implied by Section 435(1) of the IPC, inter alia other moot questions of law. [Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 48 of 2014, decided on 25th April, 2014]
Posted on: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 09:20:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015