NCLAT: IRP Has Authority to Take Possession of Assets Owned by Corporate Debtor  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Direct Forwarding a Copy of its Order to Relevant Statutory Authorities  ||  Delhi HC: Centre to Expedite Process of Accessibility Features in OTT platforms for PwDs  ||  Delhi HC: Once Worker Provides Testimony Under Oath ‘Burden of Proof’ Shifts on Employer  ||  SC: There Cannot be Discrimination in Matter of Payment of Pension to Retired Judges  ||  SC: India is Not a Dharamshala that Can Entertain Foreign Nationals from All Over  ||  SC: Can Quash Domestic Violence Act Complaints Under Section 482 of CrPC  ||  Supreme Court: Can’t Use Statement of One Accused against Another  ||  SC: Inclusion of Name in Draft NRC Cannot Annul Foreigners Tribunal’s Declaration as Non-Citizen  ||  Supreme Court: Minimum Practice of 3 Years Mandatory to Enter Judicial Service    

State of Gujarat and anr. v. Lal Singh @ Manjit Singh and ors. - (Supreme Court) (29 Jun 2016)

SC reverses High Court’s premature release of TADA convict

Criminal

The Supreme Court reproached the Punjab and Haryana High Court for assuming “power on the basis of individual perception or notion” in light of its failure to consider essential legal precedent, and basing discussion and decision on “abstractions”.

In the instant case, Respondent was tried in 1994 under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Having completed 14 years in prison, the requisite period of the sentence, he sought early release. His applications were rejected for the gravity and nature of crimes committed and impact on society, based on the Bombay Jail Manual. However, the High Court ordered reconsideration of application and ordered Respondent’s release on parole within three months.

The Supreme Court disagreed fervently with the conclusions of the High Court. Noting that the lower court had not referred to crucial legal precedent, it termed discussion on aspects of human rights and individual liberty to be “in the realm of abstractions”. It derided the court for not finding that the State government’s order was “bereft of appropriate consideration of necessary facts” and in violation of the principles of equality.

The appeal was allowed and Respondent was permitted to submit representations before an authority of the Central government for consideration of his release.

Tags : TADA   LIFE IMPRISONMENT   AMNESTY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved