Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 [Part-VI]

Death PenaltyThe Supreme Court commutes death penalty to life imprisonment for man convicted of killing wife and four children, citing no prior criminal record, good conduct during 16-17 years of incarceration, mental health issues due to past trauma, and contributions to inmate welfare. The Court, while acknowledging the severity of the crime, removes the convict from death row but orders lifelong imprisonment without release, emphasizing penance for the crime. (Para 17) Reji Kumar @ Reji v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 457 : 2025 INSC 538Supreme Court criticises 'undue haste' of trial court in awarding death penalty in 2 months without proper opportunity for defence. Irfan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 167 : 2025 INSC 150DelayDelay and Laches– Writ Jurisdiction– Negative Discrimination– Article 14- Noted that respondents approached the Court for a higher post after a gap of three and nine years respectively after joining as Sweepers- Held, inordinate delay in seeking compassionate appointment or a higher post is fatal- Prolonged delay dilutes the sense of "immediacy" which is the core of compassionate appointment policies- Respondents claimed parity with others who were allegedly granted appointments to higher posts- Held, Article 14 does not envisage "negative equality"- If an illegality or mistake was committed in favor of one person, it cannot be a ground for the Court to mandate the State to perpetuate the same illegality for others- Appeal allowed. [Relied on State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das (2023) 15 SCC 273; Paras 13-19] Director of Town Panchayat v. M. Jayabal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1203 : 2025 INSC 1423Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Special Leave Petition (Criminal) - Delay - Legal Aid - National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) Scheme - Misuse of Process - Supreme Court noted that SLP was filed with a delay of 2298 days by a convict and held that the petition was filed merely under a legal aid programme without the convict's consent, and that such a practice amounts to misuse of process - Held that since the petitioner never expressed any desire to file the Special Leave Petition, its filing only in view of the NALSA programme is a misuse of the process - Noted that that the delay in filing the same does not stand explained at all - Petition dismissed. [Paras 4, 5] Kamaljit Kaur v State of Punjab, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1035Delay in uploading judgments - Delay in uploading judgment after 2 years 5 months of pronouncing of judgment, is a matter of grave concern and a practice to be deprecated - However, there was no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts and concluded that the delay, by itself, was not sufficient to set aside the judgment - Delay in judgment uploading alone cannot nullify a conviction if the judgment is otherwise sound - Practice of High Courts deprives the aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal more particularly in criminal matters wherein the appeal is dismissed affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court - Such delays should not recur and reiterated the guidelines from the case Anil Rai v. State of Bihar to address delays in pronouncing and uploading judgements - Judgments should be made available to the parties within 3 months from the date of reserving - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 41-47] Rajan v. State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 879 : 2025 INSC 1081Condonation of delay - Judicial Discipline - Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Supreme Court noted that Trial Court refrained from exercising the jurisdiction just because the timeline prescribed by the Supreme Court for it to dispose of the proceedings was not followed by the Trial Court - Appropriate remedy available to him was to ask for extension of time but he cannot say that he has lost jurisdiction over the matter as the time allowed has lapsed - Magistrate's order was 'wholly misconceived and without authority' - Noted that the Trial judge's act was uncommon, Supreme Court directed the District Judge concerned to call for an explanation of the Judge concerned and report within a month. [Paras 4-8] Shiv Kumar Shaw v. Rekha Shaw, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 967Condonation of delay - Advocate's Fault - The appellant filed a civil suit seeking, inter alia, a declaration that she was the legally wedded wife of the late Raj Kishore Sahoo. The suit was dismissed, and her first appeal met the same fate. She filed a second appeal before the High Court after a delay of 225 days, attributable to her advocate's failure to timely inform her of the first appellate order's dismissal. The High Court rejected the condonation application, deeming the explanation unsatisfactory. Whether a 225-day delay in filing a second appeal, caused by counsel's negligence, warrants condonation, particularly in light of the litigant's socio-economic vulnerability. Held, delay condoned; appeal allowed; matter remitted to the High Court for expeditious disposal. While ...

Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 [Part-VI]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags