Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved