LexSHABNAM versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2015) 8 S.C.R. 289 SHABNAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS .. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 88 of 2015) MAY27, 2015 [A.K. SIKRI AND UDAY UM ESH LALIT, JJ.] Sentence/Sentencing: A B c Murder case - Death sentence - Conviction and sentence upheld by Supreme Court- Within a week death warrants issued by Sessions Judge - Writ petition challenging same - Held: Death warrant was signed by the Sessions 0 Judge in haste without exhaustion of remedies available to the convicts - This is impermissible and unwarranted. Death sentence - Procedure to be followed before execution of death sentence - Essential safeguards ~ Sufficient notice to be given to convict before. issuance of E death warrant- Warrant must specify exact date and time for execution - Reasonable period of time must elapse between the date of order on the execution warrant and date fixed - Copy of execution warrant to be immediately supplied to the F cbnvict - Where a convict is not in a position to avail legal assistance, legal aid must be provided. · Rights of convicts who are impos.ed death penalty- Held: Convicts have judicial and administrative remedies - Right to file review petition is a valuable right given to the convicts G who are imposed death penalty- Convict also has a right to file mercy petitions to the Governor of the State as well as the 289 H 290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. .. A President of India - Suell' right cannot be .snatched by executing the death sentence before even giving such convicts a chance or opporlunity to avail the same - For this purpose, the State has to wait for reasonable period even after such convicts fail in the review petition if they so file - B Constitution of/ndia, 1950-Arlicle 21. Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) v. Union of Ind/a & Ors. PIL No. 57810 of 2014 decided on 28.01.2015; Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. c . (2014) 3 sec: 2014 (1) SCR 609; Mohd. Arif@Ashfaq v. D E Registrar, Supreme Courl offndia & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 737; II. Sriharan @ Murugan v. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 4 SCC 242; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248: 1978 (2) SCR 621 - relied on. Constitution of India, 1950: Arlic/e. 21 - Right to life - Right to Human dignity - . Elements of - Discussed. Arlicle 21 - Right to Human dignity- Held: Condemned prisoners also have a right to dignity and execution of death sentence cannot be carried out in arbitrary, hurried and secret manner without allowing the convicts to exhaust all legal F remedies - Sentence/Sentencing. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 438; Furman v. Georgia 408 US 238 (1972); Gregg v. Georgia 428 US 153 (1976); Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684; Deena v. Union of India (1983) G 4 SCC 645:1984 (1) SCR 1; Su nil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Ors. (1978) 4 SCC 494: 1979 (1) SCR 392 - referred to. H SHABNAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Case Law Reference 2014 (1) SCR 609 relied on. Para 12 (2014) 9 sec 737 relied on. Para 13 (2014) 4 sec 242 relied on. Para 13 · 1978 (2) SCR 621 relied on. Para 13 (2014) s sec 438 referred to. Para 13 (1980) 2 sec 684 referred to. Para 17 1984 (1) SCR 1 referred to. Para 18 1979 (1) SCR 392 referred to. Para 19 CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 88 of 2015 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. WITH W. P. (Crl) No. 89/2015 Anand Grover, Raju Ramachandran, Shadan Farasat, Lubhyathi R., Shreya Rastogi, Nishant Gokhale, for the Petitioner. Pinky Anand, ASG, V. Mohan, Binu Tamta, Karan Seth, Rajesh Ranjan (For Sushma Suri), Pragati Neekhra, Ameet Singh, for the Respondents. The Order of the Court was delivered by A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. Rule. 291 A B c D E F G 2) Ms. Pinky Anand, learned ASG, accepts notice on H 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A behalf of Union of India and Ms. Pragati Neekhra, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh. 3) With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have taken up these petitions for final hearing B and propose to dispose of these writ petitions by this order. 4) Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 88 of 2015 is filed by Shabnam and Writ Petition (Criminal) 89 of 2015 is filed by National Law University, Delhi, espousing the cause of Salim~ c Both Shabnam and Salim (hereinafter referred to as, "the convicts") were co-accused in a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.