Ex-CJI UU Lalit Discusses Important Criminal Law Judgments Of Last One Decade In LiveLaw's 10th Anniversary Lecture Series

As part of celebrating the milestone 'LiveLaw @ 10: A Decade of Revolutionary Reporting', LiveLaw commenced the 10th Anniversary Lecture Series on July 3 with an inaugural lecture delivered by former Chief Justice of India Justice U.U Lalit. Justice Lalit delivered an enlightening discourse on "The Evolution of Criminal Law in the Last Decade" pinpointing significant judicial decisions to navigate better through the intricacies of criminal law. In his lecture, Justice Lalit specifically discussed a 7-judge bench decision, 7 constitutional bench decisions, and various 3-judge bench decisions that were rendered in the past decade, aiming to identify a common underlying principle in the recent approach of the Supreme Court towards criminal cases. The lecture shed light on the evolving landscape of criminal law through these significant legal precedents.Death and Life SentencesSarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases: The question here was the time limit to initiate action as provided under Sections 467 and 468 of CrPC which provides the time limit to initiate action starts from the day the cognisance is taken. Adopting a constructive and purposive interpretation, the constitutional bench held that in cases where the action was initiated well in time but cognisance was taken after limitation had expired, the person concerned should not be put to prejudice since the delay was a result of processes of the court. It was held that the benefit of limitation should always weigh in favour of the person concerned. Mohd Arif v. State: The Supreme Court Rules entitle a person awarded with a death sentence to file a review petition, but they mandate that the review petition be listed before the judges who constituted the bench initially and in chambers. There was no right of being heard in chambers either. The constitutional bench found this inconsistent with the right to life granted to every citizen, especially when life in its true form was at stake. The Supreme Court laid down three principles in this case:(i) In review petitions concerning a death sentence, there shall be a right to oral hearings as a matter of right.(ii) Such review petitions must be listed before a bench of 3 judges, irrespective of whether the original appeal was previously heard by a bench of 2 judges (iii) Hearing must be held for at least half an hour.This triggered other important questions - what about the review petitions which were disposed of earlier in chambers, some of which were decided by 2-judge benches? In response to this, the Supreme Court extended the right to such death convicts and permitted them to file new review petitions or to get their earlier review petitions reinstated. This led to a massive inflow of reinstated review petitions before three-judge benches. In most cases, the third judge was completely alien to the earlier proceedings. This appeared to be an advantage since in at least 10 matters, the benefit of commutation from a death sentence to life or even a clean acquittal was granted in open court. This was a significant decision because Supreme Court paved the way where a substantive benefit could be conferred upon persons awarded a death sentence where the matter could get a relook and fresh consideration.Union of India v. V. Sriharan: In Swamy Shraddananda vs. State of Karnataka, it was held that in a case where a death sentence is awarded and but the court finds the case does not warrant death sentence and at the same time mere award of life imprisonment would not be sufficient, the court may award a life sentence with a rider that the executive shall not exercise the power of commutation or remission for a fixed period of 20-25 years whatever the court decides. This was challenged before the constitutional court. The bench held that it is within the powers of the court to commute the death sentence but the person shall not be released and his sentence cannot be commuted till he completes a fixed time in prison, the duration of such period to be fixed as the court deems appropriate. This case is important because the law declared here was adopted in some of the review petitions raised after the Mohd Arif case. So it appears that these two decisions almost run parallel. Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr v. Union Of India: In this case, the challenge was against the non-commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment on various grounds. The constitutional bench examined the five heads established for praying for commuting death sentences -delay, insanity, solitary confinement, judgments declared per incuriam and procedural lapses. These five heads were accepted as justifiable reasons for commuting the death sentence. This was seen as a recognition of the fact that even after awarding of the death sentence, there could be supervening circumstances which entitle a death convict to seek commutation. The Supreme Court delved deep into the solitary confinement aspect and observed that the protection of Article ...

Ex-CJI UU Lalit Discusses Important Criminal Law Judgments Of Last One Decade In LiveLaw's 10th Anniversary Lecture Series

Hannah M Varghese

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Hannah M Varghese

Ex-CJI UU Lalit Discusses Important Criminal Law Judgments Of Last One Decade In LiveLaw's 10th Anniversary Lecture Series

Hannah M Varghese

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Hannah M Varghese

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers