Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against BCCI Team Named 'Team India', Terms it a Sheer Waste of Time  ||  Bombay HC: No Absolute Right for Citizens to Access Public Offices  ||  Delhi HC: Suit Withdrawal After Compromise Doesn’t Result in Executable Decree  ||  Delhi HC: ITSC Abolition Doesn’t Void Settlement Pleas Filed Between Feb 1–Mar 31, 2021  ||  Rajasthan HC: State Must Set Up Trauma Centre, Art Institute; Temple Board Can Only Assist  ||  Kerala HC: LIC Cancer Cover Starts From First Diagnosis After Waiting Period, Not Expert Opinion  ||  Kerala HC: Spouse’s Ill Treatment of Children is Cruelty under Section 10(1) Divorce Act  ||  Supreme Court Acquits Chennai Man Sentenced to Death in Child Rape-Murder Case  ||  SC: Only Disclosure Leading to Weapon Recovery Admissible under Section 27 Evidence Act  ||  Supreme Court Orders Strict Enforcement on Helmets, Lane Discipline & Headlight Use    

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