10 convicts from Jharkhand, including 6 on death row, move SC over long-pending verdict on appeals
According to the petition, jointly filed by the convicts, verdicts in eight cases were reserved more than three years ago. Judgments in the remaining two have not been pronounced despite a lapse of 2-3 years.
New Delhi: Ten convicts from Jharkhand, including six who are on death row, have moved the Supreme Court, complaining against the delayed disposal of their appeals by the state HC.
The petition raises important questions regarding convicts' rights to personal liberty and procedural fairness under the criminal justice system. It argues that convicts too have the right to live with dignity under the Constitution. Prolonged delay in disposal of their appeals is antithetical to Constitutional as well as statutory rights.
Incidentally, this is the second time that convicts from Jharkhand have sought the top court's intervention in pending verdicts on their appeals filed against trial court decisions.
In the previous round, four convicts had filed writ petitions under Article 32—a remedy under the Constitution to move the top court directly for enforcement of a fundamental right. Subsequent to the apex court's notice, the HC had delivered its verdict for all four, resulting in acquittal in three cases. In the fourth case, the HC had referred the case to a third judge due to a difference of opinion between the two judges. Nonetheless, the convict in the fourth case was released on bail immediately.
Taking note of the inordinate delay on the part of the state HC, Justice Kant's bench had asked its registrar general for a detailed report on the status of such cases, if any.
Notably, all the 14 cases that have reached the top court were heard by a division bench of two judges. As per the Jharkhand HC website, Justice Rongon Mukopadhyay led the two-judges bench that heard and then reserved the verdict in these matters. Only the junior judges were different. Justice Mukopadhyay also heads the High Court Services Legal Committee—a legal aid body that provides free legal services to marginalised sections of the society.
Three of six death row convicts, who filed their appeals in the HC in 2018, are facing death sentence in rape cases.
One of the 10 petitioners has been in jail for more than 16 years and had filed his appeal in the HC in 2013. Six have been in jail for more than a decade, with two having spent more than 15 years behind bars. The remaining three have been in jail for 6 to 8 years now.
The petitioners, who moved their petition through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC), were represented in the top court by advocate Fauzia Shakil.
Before moving the SC, the petitioners and their families repeatedly raised the issue of delayed verdicts with multiple authorities, including the Chief Justice of the HC. They also wrote to the Chief Minister's office and legal aid bodies such as NALSA, state as well as district legal services authority.
The delay is not just a procedural violation, but a breach of a statutory mandate too. The petition pointed out that as per the Jharkhand HC rules, a judgment should ordinarily be pronounced within six weeks of the conclusion of arguments.
If not pronounced within three months of the conclusion of the arguments, the Chief Justice may either post the case for delivering the judgment in an open court or withdraw and post it for disposal before an appropriate bench.
In terms of the statutory mandate, the rape appeals ought to have been disposed of within six months of the filing of the appeal. Under the Criminal Law (Amendment Act), 2018, which came into effect on 21 April 2018, with the insertion of sub-section (4) in section 376 of the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc), an appeal filed against the sentence imposed under the rape law must be disposed of within six months from the date of filing of an appeal.
The petition is also an attempt to seek correction of earlier Supreme Court judgments that have given relief to death row convicts only when there is delay on the part of the President or Governor in deciding mercy petitions, observing inordinate delay in the execution of death sentence causes mentally agony.
Ironically, these judgments have excluded the impact of protracted delays in judicial proceedings, such as confirmation of death sentences or adjudication of criminal appeals, on a convict's mental health and dignity.
Courts have criticised the executives—President and Governor—for their inexplicable delay in deciding mercy petitions of death row convicts while commuting them to life sentences, but have refrained from taking into account the judicial impasse that has forced prisoners to remain incarcerated for prolonged periods.
Rather, judicial decisions have held that a convict is not under immediate threat of execution when his/her appeal is a subject of judicial consideration, meaning pendency of their case in a court does not affect them psychologically.
'It is further submitted that mere availability of judicial remedies does not eliminate the mental anguish; in fact, protracted delays in judicial proceedings exacerbate the suffering, as the convict is kept in a state of suspended animation—neither assured of life nor facing immediate execution,' the petition has submitted.
'It is respectfully submitted that the pendency of death sentence confirmation hearings or criminal appeals, particularly in cases involving capital punishment, is not a period of calm or relief. Rather, it is a period of uncertainty and anxiety. The convict remains incarcerated under the shadow of a potential execution despite the existence of legal remedies,' it added.
Delay in pronouncement of judgments is not just a violation of the right under Article 21, but is a crucial factor for suspension of the sentence, the petition has argued.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Why Supreme Court hasn't confirmed a single death sentence in the last two years
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Private chat recorded by spouse admissible as evidence, says Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: on Monday held that a private conversation between spouses, secretly recorded by one of them, is admissible as evidence in a matrimonial dispute and would not amount to breach of . Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Enumerating Section 122 of the Evidence Act, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said it dealt with the rule of privilege protecting disclosure of all communications between husband and wife during marriage except in litigation between them. It said, "Under section 122, privileged communication between spouses is protected in the context of fostering intimate relationship. However, the exception under Section 122 has to be construed in light of right to a fair trial which is also an aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution." "When we weigh the respective rights of the parties in a trial within the parameters of Section 122 of the Evidence Act, we do not think that there is any breach of right to privacy in the instant case. In fact, Section 122 does not recognise such a right at all. On the other hand, the section carves out an exception to right to privacy between spouses, and therefore, cannot be applied horizontally at all," the bench said. In this regard, "we reiterate that as per procedure established by law, Section 122 does not touch upon the aspect of right to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution, let alone invade upon such right. The reason is because Section 122 recognises the right to a fair trial, right to produce relevant evidence and a right to prove one's case against a spouse so as to avail the relief sought for by a party," it said. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The section talks about communications during marriage and states that "no person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other. " SC made the observations on man's plea to bring privileged communication as evidence before a family court in matrimonial dispute. SC also said, "Now, in today's day and age, when the technological advancement has made it easier to record and recreate moments of past and present for reference in future, then to say that such better forms of evidence and material would not be admissible on the ground of they being in violation of the right to privacy would amount to defeating the very object of the Evidence Act. That was the reason for Parliament to amend the Evidence Act by incorporating Section 65B which specifically deals with electronic evidence."
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Education Department layoffs: Why Supreme Court's decision is ‘willfully blind' and ‘naive', judges explain
A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed President Donald Trump to execute his plan to dismantle the Education Department back on track and lay off nearly 1,400 employees. Three liberal judges, in their dissent, slammed the decision, saying it was 'naive' and 'willfully blind'. The decision pauses the order by Boston's Judge Myong Joun, who issued a preliminary injunction reversing the layoffs and calling into question the broader plan. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to execute mass layoffs in the Education Department(REUTERS) The layoffs 'will likely cripple the department', Joun wrote. While the majority did not explain its decision to back Trump, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan were quick to publish their dissent. 'When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary's duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,' Sotomayor wrote. 'It hands the Executive the power to repeal statutes by firing all those necessary to carry them out,' the three justices further added. 'The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive, but either way the threat to our Constitution's separation of powers is grave." Meanwhile, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said it's a 'shame' it took the Supreme Court's intervention to let Trump's plan move ahead. 'Today, the Supreme Court again confirmed the obvious: the President of the United States, as the head of the Executive Branch, has the ultimate authority to make decisions about staffing levels, administrative organization, and day-to-day operations of federal agencies,' McMahon said in a statement. Earlier on Monday, over 20 states sued the administration over billions of dollars in frozen education funding for after-school care, summer programs and more. Education Department employees who were targeted by the layoffs have been on paid leave since March, according to a union that represents some of the agency's staff. Joun's order had prevented the department from fully terminating them, though none had been allowed to return to work, according to the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252. Without Joun's order, the workers would have been terminated in early June. The Education Department had said earlier in June that it was 'actively assessing how to reintegrate' the employees. A department email asked them to share whether they had gained other employment, saying the request was meant to 'support a smooth and informed return to duty.' The current case involves two consolidated lawsuits that said Trump's plan amounted to an illegal closure of the Education Department. One suit was filed by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts along with the American Federation of Teachers and other education groups. The other legal action was filed by a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general. The suits argued that layoffs left the department unable to carry out responsibilities required by Congress, including duties to support special education, distribute financial aid and enforce civil rights laws. (With AP inputs)
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Assam to Commission: Wait for our NRC before intensive roll revision
Officials from Assam have told the Election Commission (EC) that since it is the only state to have already carried out the exercise of preparing the National Register of Citizens (NRC), this should be factored in whenever the poll panel frames its timelines and decides the list of eligibility documents for the state's special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, The Indian Express has learned. Sources in the Assam government said that since the EC is also looking at the citizenship aspect to determine eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll — and given that Assam has already undertaken a citizenship verification exercise — the NRC, once published, can serve as one of the admissible documents for the SIR. Hence the state's request. This comes even as Opposition parties have alleged that the Bihar SIR has become a de facto citizenship-verifying exercise – 'NRC through the backdoor' – and that's not within the purview of the poll panel. Assam's request, learned to have been made after the Commission's announcement last month of a nationwide intensive revision of electoral rolls starting with Bihar, if accepted, could effectively mean a delay in the state's SIR. This is because the Assam NRC — a Supreme Court-monitored exercise meant to resolve decades of demographic anxieties in the state — remains stuck in limbo. Since the publication of the draft NRC in 2019, which excluded 19.6 lakh individuals from 3.3 crore applicants, the Registrar General of India is yet to notify it and both the BJP-led state governments since then have maintained that they do not find it acceptable in its current form. The objective of the NRC in Assam was to identify Indian citizens and distinguish them from illegal migrants in a state that has witnessed years of protests and political churn over undocumented migration. However, Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma is among its critics. The Assam government has maintained that the inclusions and exclusions in it are erroneous, and that excludes 'indigenous people' while including large numbers of 'foreigners' and that the number of people who had entered the state illegally after March 24, 1974 – the cut-off date for the NRC – is far higher than 19 lakh. The question of reverification had been raised by the Central and state government even before the 2019 NRC was finalised but had been denied by the Supreme Court. On July 23, 2019, the Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman had observed that NRC coordinator Prateek Hajela had submitted that 27% reverification had already been done during the course of consideration and adjudication of the claims and that the court did not find it necessary for further sample reverification. In a special Assembly session held last month, CM Sarma said that the state government is still in the process of seeking 20% reverification of the list in districts bordering Bangladesh and 10% in the rest of the districts. 'The NRC is about to be released. It will be out in a month or two, most likely by October,' a source said, adding: 'We feel the NRC data, as it has been prepared after verification — and with reverification also in process — will be a perfect document for proving citizenship. It can be one of the documents (to be considered for the intensive revision).' A query sent to the Commission on whether it has considered Assam's request or taken a decision on the matter did not elicit a response. When contacted, Sarma told this newspaper that there has been no 'correspondence' with the EC on this issue. The Election Commission's decision to begin an intensive revision of the electoral roll from Bihar has sparked political opposition in the state, with some parties even moving the Supreme Court against the exercise. The trigger: the list of documents the Commission has asked voters — those registered in Bihar after 2003 — to furnish to prove their eligibility, specifically age and citizenship, to remain on the rolls. The year 2003 has been picked as the cut-off because that was when the last intensive revision took place in Bihar. So, anyone who featured in the 2003 electoral roll is presumed to be a citizen, and is therefore eligible for inclusion in the new roll now being prepared. The petitioners in the Supreme Court have questioned the EC's power to verify the citizenship of voters, the importance of due process in such an exercise, and the timing of the revision itself. The Supreme Court eventually declined to restrain the EC from proceeding with its intensive revision of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar but suggested that the poll panel also consider Aadhaar, voter ID, and ration cards for the purpose of updating the rolls. This is in addition to the 11 documents listed by ECI which include any identity card or pension payment order issued to a regular employee or pensioner of any Central or State Government/PSU; any identity card, certificate, or document issued by Government/Local Authorities, Banks, Post Office, LIC, or PSU prior to July 1, 1987; a birth certificate issued by the competent authority; passport; matriculation or educational certificate issued by recognised boards or universities; permanent residence certificate issued by the competent state authority; forest rights certificate; OBC, SC, ST, or any caste certificate issued by the competent authority; the National Register of Citizens (where applicable); family register; and land or house allotment certificate issued by the government. Have been in journalism covering national politics for 23 years. Have covered six consecutive Lok Sabha elections and assembly polls in almost all the states. Currently writes on ruling BJP. Always loves to understand what's cooking in the national politics (And ventures into the act only in kitchen at home). ... Read More Ritika Chopra, an award-winning journalist with over 17 years of experience, serves as the Chief of the National Bureau (Govt) and National Education Editor at The Indian Express in New Delhi. In her current role, she oversees the newspaper's coverage of government policies and education. Ritika closely tracks the Union Government, focusing on the politically sensitive Election Commission of India and the Education Ministry, and has authored investigative stories that have prompted government responses. Ritika joined The Indian Express in 2015. Previously, she was part of the political bureau at The Economic Times, India's largest financial daily. Her journalism career began in Kolkata, her birthplace, with the Hindustan Times in 2006 as an intern, before moving to Delhi in 2007. Since then, she has been reporting from the capital on politics, education, social sectors, and the Election Commission of India. ... Read More
