LexTARA SFNGH & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016] 3 S.C.R. 278 TARA SfNGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (WritPetition(Crl.)No. 190of2014) JUNE 29, 2016 [DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.J.] Constitution of India -Arts. 32, 72 and 161 - Power of Supreme Court to grant remission u/Art. 32 - On facts, conviction of petitioner under NDPS Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for more than JO years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh - Petitioners seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to authorities to grant remission - Held: Constitutional power to grant remission u/Arts. 72 and 161 is quite different than the statutory power of remission uls. 433A A Cr PC - Petitioners do not have a right to seek remission under the Code because of s. 32A of the NDPS Act - Relief could always be sought either u/Art. 71 or 161, as the case may be, as it is in a different domain - Further, it cannot be said that when a pardon or remission can be given u/Art. 72 or 161 by the constitutional authority, this Court can exercise the similar power u/Art. 32 - Invocation of Art. 32 can be only when there is violation of any fundamental right or where the Court takes up certain grievance falling in the realm of public interest litigation - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - ss. 21, 32A - New Punjab Jail Manual, 1996 - Chapter XIX Dismissing the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1.1 The petitioners have invoked the power of the Supreme Court to grant the benefit of remission in exercise of power under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Speaking plainly, the prayer is totally misconceived. Section 32-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as far as it took away the power of the Court to suspend the sentence awarded to the convict under the Act has been declared unconstitutional in * Dadu 's case. A convict can pray for suspension of sentence when the appeal is pending for adjudication. The said authority has upheld the constitutional 278 TARA SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA validity of the Section insofar as it takes away the right of the executive to suspend, remit and commute the sentence. Negation of the power of the courts to suspend the sentence which has been declared as unconstitutional, as has been held in * Dadu 's case, does not confer a right on the convict to ask for suspension of the sentence as a matter of right in all cases nor does it absolve fhe courts of their legal obligation to exercise the power of suspension within the parameters prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The constitutional power exercised under Articles 72 and 161 is quite different than the power exercised under a statute. [Para 19] [288-E-H; 289-A] 1.2 The constitutional power engrafted under Articles 72 and 161 are different than the statutory power enshrined under Section 433-A CrPC. The petitioners do not have a right to seek remission under the Code because of Section 32A of the NDPS Act. They can always seek relief either under Article 71 or 161 of the Constitution, as the case may be, as it is in a different domain. [Para 20] [290-B] 1.3 The instant factual matrix does not remotely suggest that there has been violation of any fundamental right. There is no violation of any law which affects the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The argument that when a pardon or remission can be given under Article 72 or 161 of the Constitution by the constitutional authority, this Court can exercise the similar power under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is absolutely based on an erroneous premise. Article 32, as has been interpreted and stated by the Constitution Bench and well settled in law, can be only invoked when there is violation of any fundamental right or where the Court takes up certain grievance which falls in the realm of public interest litigation. Therefore, the submission is repelled on the said score. [Para 22] [290-H; 291-A-C] Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 161:1984 (2) SCR 67; Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others (2013) 8 SCC 154: 2013 (6) SCR 810 - relied on. 1.4 Where the minimum sentence is provided, it would not be at all appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to reduce the sentence on the ground 279 A B c D E F G H 280 A B c D E F G SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R. of the so-called mitigating factor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.