Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 1257 - SC - Indian LawsReview petition filed by a convict whose death penalty is affirmed by this Court is required to be heard in open Court but cannot be decided by circulation - Extinguishment of life - Whether Article 21 is the sole repository of the constitutional guarantee against the deprivation of life? - whether it is sufficient for the State to merely prescribe a procedure for the deprivation of life by a law, or whether such a law is required to comply with certain other constitutional requirements? - As per Jasti Chelameswar, J, HELD THAT:- Article 137 does not confer any right to seek review of any judgment of this Court in any person. On the other hand, it only recognizes the authority of this Court to review its own judgments. It is a settled position of law that the Courts of limited jurisdiction don't have any inherent power of review. Though this Court is the apex constitutional court with plenary jurisdiction, the makers of the Constitution thought it fit to expressly confer such a power on this Court as they were aware that if an error creeps into the judgment of this Court, there is no way of correcting it. Therefore, perhaps they did not want to leave scope for any doubt regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to review its judgments in appropriate cases. Prior to the amendment of Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules in 1978, which was the subject matter of challenge in the case of PN. ESWARA IYER VERSUS THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [1980 (2) TMI 258 - SUPREME COURT], this Court granted oral hearings even at the stage of review. It was by the amendment that the oral hearings were eliminated at the review stage. As explained by Eswara Iyer's case, such an amendment was necessitated as a result of unwarranted "review baby" boom. This Court, in exercise of its authority Under Article 145 as a part of the Court management strategy, thought it fit to eliminate the oral hearings at the review stage while preserving the discretion in the Bench considering a review application to grant an oral hearing in an appropriate case. There are no reason to take a different view -whether the "developments" subsequent to Eswara Iyer's case, either in law or practice of this Court, demand a reconsideration of the rule, should be left to the Court's jurisdiction Under Article 145. As per Rohinton Fali Nariman, J, HELD THAT:- Deflecting a little from the death penalty cases, we deem it necessary to make certain general comments on sentencing, as they are relevant to the context. Crime and punishment are two sides of the same coin. Punishment must fit the crime. The notion of 'Just deserts' or a sentence proportionate to the offender's culpability was the principle which, by passage of time, became applicable to criminal jurisprudence. It is not out of place to mention that in all of recorded history, there has never been a time when crime and punishment have not been the subject of debate and difference of opinion. There are no statutory guidelines to regulate punishment. Therefore, in practice, there is much variance in the matter of sentencing. In many countries, there are laws prescribing sentencing guidelines, but there is no statutory sentencing policy in India. The Indian Penal Code, prescribes only the maximum punishments for offences and in some cases minimum punishment is also prescribed. Though, it is not necessary to dwell upon this aspect elaborately, at the same time, it needs to be emphasised that when on the same set of facts, one judicial mind can come to the conclusion that the circumstances do not warrant the death penalty, whereas another may feel it to be a fit case fully justifying the death penalty, we feel that when a convict who has suffered the sentence of death and files a review petition, the necessity of oral hearing in such a review petition becomes an integral part of "reasonable procedure". The validity of no oral hearing rule in review petitions, generally, has been upheld in PN. ESWARA IYER VERSUS THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [1980 (2) TMI 258 - SUPREME COURT] which is a binding precedent. Review petitions arising out of death sentence cases is carved out as a separate category as oral hearing in such review petitions is found to be mandated by Article 21 - when it is a question of life and death of a person, even a remote chance of deviating from such a decision while exercising the review jurisdiction, would justify oral hearing in a review petition. It is not necessary to refer to the various sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code argued before us. Equally, Article 20(1) has no manner of application as the writ Petitioner is not being subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence. This petition is therefore dismissed.
|