Karnataka HC: A Neighbour Cannot be Charged With Matrimonial Cruelty under Section 498A IPC  ||  Revisional Power U/S 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act is Supervisory; HC Cannot Revisit Facts  ||  Poverty Cannot Bar Parole; Rajasthan HC Waives Surety For Indigent Life Convict, Sets Guidelines  ||  Delhi High Court: Late Payment of TDS Does Not Absolve Criminal Liability under the Income Tax Act  ||  NCLT Kochi: Avoidance Provisions under Insolvency Code Aim to Restore, Not Punish, Parties  ||  Bombay High Court: In IBC Cases, High Courts Lack Parallel Contempt Jurisdiction over the NCLT  ||  Supreme Court: Concluded Auction Cannot Be Cancelled Merely To Invite Higher Bids at a Later Stage  ||  SC: In Customs Classification, Statutory Tariff Headings and HSN Notes Prevail over Common Parlance  ||  SC: Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Notice U/S 10(5) Must be Served on the Person in Possession  ||  Supreme Court: Only Courts May Condone Delay; Tribunals Lack Power Unless Statute Allows    

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