SC: Confirmation of an Auction Sale Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny of Reserve Price Valuation  ||  Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction of Four Men in a 1998 Gang Rape Case  ||  Supreme Court: Privy Purse Privileges of Princely Rulers are Not Enforceable Legal Rights  ||  Delhi HC: Repeated Court Summons May Distress and Re-Traumatize Child Sexual Assault Victims  ||  Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Labeling Someone as a Terrorist Associate Amounts to Defamation  ||  Delhi HC: Setting Aside or Altering a Judge’s Order by a Higher Court Doesn’t Affect Their Integrity  ||  Delhi High Court: Accused Cannot be Faulted For Smart Replies; Interrogator Must be Sharper  ||  Supreme Court: Belated Jurisdictional Challenge Impermissible After Participation in Arbitration  ||  Supreme Court: Failure to Prove Specific Overt Acts of Each Unlawful Assembly Member Not Fatal  ||  Supreme Court: Parental Salary Alone Cannot Determine OBC Creamy Layer Status    

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