LexMOHD. ARIF @ASHFAQ versus HE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2014] 11 $.C.R. 1009 MOHD. ARIF @ASHFAQ v. THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 77 of 2014 etc.) SEPTEMBER 02, 2014 [R.M. LODHA, CJI, JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. CHELAMESWAR, A.K. SIKRI AND R.F. NARIMAN, JJ.] A B Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Or. XL r.3 - Constitutionality of - Challenged -:- Seeking open court oral C hearing of Review Petitions in death sentence cases - Held: Per majority: Limited oral hearing at review stage in death sentence cases is mandated by Art. 21 of the Constitutio_n, hence permissible - Per Minority: Not permissible - There is no obligation u!Art. 21 to grant oral hearing - The rule of D audi alteram partem does not take within its sweep right to make oral submission - Constitution of India, 1950- Arts. 21 and 137. Disposing of the writ petitions, the Court HELD: MAJORITY OPINION: Per R.F. Nariman, J. (for himself and Lodha. Khehar and Sikri. JJ.l : E F 1 . .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, G became applicable to criminal jurisprudence. There are no statutory guidelines to regulate punishment. Therefore, in practice, there is much variance in the matter of sentencing. The Judges exercise wide discretion 1009 H . 1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 11 S.C.R. I A within the statutory limits and the scope for deciding the .amount of punishment is left to the judiciary to reach decision after hearing the parties. [Para 30] [1031-C·G] 2.1. The fundamental right to life and the irreversibility 8 of a death sentence mandate that oral hearing be given at the review stage in death sentence cases, as a just, fair and reasonable procedure under Article 21 mandates such hearing, and cannot give way to the severe stress of the workload of the Supreme Court. When it comes to death penalty cases, the power of the spoken word has C to be given yet another opportunity even if the ultimate success rate is minimal. [Paras 40, 35] [1034-B; 1036-C] · 2.2 .. When on the same set'of .facts, one judicial mind can come to the conclusion that the circumstances do · D not warrant the death penalty, whereas another may feel it to be a fit case fully justifying the death penalty, 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 E "reasonable procedure". "Reasonable procedure" would encompass oral hearing of review. petitions arising out of death penalties. [Paras 30, 31) [1032-D-F] 2.3. While awarding a death sentence, in most of the cases, this Court would generally be affirming the F decision on this aspect already arrived at by two Courts below namely the trial court as well as the High Court. After such an affirmation, the 'scope of review of such a judgment may be very narrow: At the same time, when it is a question of life and death ·of a person, even a remote G chance of deviating from 'such a decision while exercising the review jurisdiction, would justify oral hearing in a review petition. [Para 33] [1033-C-E] 2.4. Review Petitions are inartistically drafted and oral H • • . MOHD. ARIF @ASHFAQ v. REGISTRAR, SUPREME 1011 COURT OF INDIA submissions by a skilled advocate can bring home a A point which may otherwise not be succinctly stated, given the enlarged scope of review in criminal matters. The fact that the courts overcrowded docket would be able to manage such limited oral hearings in death sentence cases only, being roughly 60 per annum, is not B a factor to which great weight need be accorded as the fundamental right to life is the only paramount factor in these cases. The justice of the situation in this class of cases demands a limited oral hearing. An outer limit of 30 minutes in all such cases may be provided. [Para 37, c 41, 40] [1034-E-G; 1035-H; 1036-E, A] 2.5. The right of a limited oral hearing in review petitions where death sentence is given, shall be applicable only in pending review petitions and such petitions filed in future. It will also apply where a review D petition is already dismissed but the death sentence is not executed so far. In such cases, the petitioners can . apply for the reopening of their review petition within one month from.the date .of this judgm
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.