Supreme Court issues notice to Jharkhand HC over long-pending verdict after 10 convicts file petition
The petitioners had approached the Jharkhand High Court between 2018 and 2019, challenging their convictions by a lower court. Despite the completion of hearings in 2022-23, the High Court has yet to deliver its verdict, which prompted the convicts to move apex court.
Out of the 10 petitioners, six were sentenced to death and the remaining four to life imprisonment. Nine of them are currently lodged in Birsa Munda Central Jail in Hotwar, Ranchi, while one has recently been released on bail from Dumka jail.
A bench comprising Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the judge who reserved judgment in all these appeals is the same in each case, raising questions about the prolonged delay.
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Fauzia Shakil argued that withholding a verdict for years after hearings are concluded constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to speedy justice.
Shakil highlighted the mental anguish faced by the convicts due to the delay, especially those awaiting execution.
She cited the Supreme Court's ruling in HPA International vs Bhagwandas, where the court expressed concern over the practice of reserving judgments indefinitely.
The petition also referred to the Jharkhand High Court Rules (2001), which mandate that judgments must be delivered within six weeks of the conclusion of arguments.
Further, citing previous Supreme Court rulings related to sentence suspension, the advocate pointed out that convicts who have already served eight years of actual sentence are, in most cases, eligible for bail.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
UK launched secret scheme to relocate Afghans after data leak, documents show
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills Britain set up a secret scheme to relocate thousands of Afghans to the UK after a soldier accidentally disclosed the personal details of more than 33,000 people, putting them at risk of reprisals from the Taliban, court documents showed on Tuesday.A judge at London's High Court said in a May 2024 judgment first made public on Tuesday that about 20,000 people may have to be offered relocation to Britain, a move that would likely cost "several billion pounds".Britain's current defence minister John Healey said that around 4,500 affected people "are in Britain or in transit ... at a cost of around 400 million pounds".The government is also facing lawsuits from those affected by the breach, further adding to the ultimate cost of the incident.A Ministry of Defence-commissioned review of the data breach, a summary of which was also published on Tuesday, said more than 16,000 people affected by it had been relocated to the UK as of May this British government was forced to act after the breach revealed the names of Afghans who had helped British forces in Afghanistan before they withdrew from the country in chaotic circumstances in details emerged on Tuesday after a legal ruling known as a superinjunction was lifted. The injunction had been granted in 2023 after the MoD argued that a public disclosure of the breach could put people at risk of extra-judicial killing or serious violence by the dataset contained personal information of nearly 19,000 Afghans who had applied to be relocated to Britain and their was released in error in early 2022, before the MoD spotted the breach in August 2023, when part of the dataset was published on former Conservative government obtained the injunction the following Minister Keir Starmer's centre-left government, which was elected last July, launched a review into the injunction, the breach and the relocation scheme, which found that although Afghanistan remains dangerous, there was little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution.
NDTV
25 minutes ago
- NDTV
Amid Row In Bihar, NDTV Explains 'Special Intensive Revision' Of Voter Lists
The Election Commission on Monday activated resources for a potential national 'special intensive revision' of voter lists. Some states - including national capital Delhi and Uttarakhand - have already released current lists, a move seen as a prelude to asking voters to re-verify their names on the rolls. Sources said the Election Commission will take a final call on a pan-India voter list revision - for the purpose of weeding out non-Indians by identifying each individual's place of birth - after July 28, when the Supreme Court is expected to finish hearing challenges to just such an exercise in Bihar. Last week the Supreme Court affirmed the Election Commission's authority - under the Constitution - to review these lists "so non-citizens do not remain on the rolls". What Is Revision Of Voter List? Section 21 of the Representation of People Act of 1950 says the Election Commission is tasked with preparing and revising electoral rolls for all Assembly and parliamentary constituencies in the country. The term 'electoral roll' or 'voter list' refers to a register of all eligible and registered voters in each constituency. The list is critical to ensure a free, fair, and transparent electoral process.\ READ | 'Voter List Revision Before Polls A Conspiracy': Tejashwi Yadav To NDTV Under Section 16 of Representation of People Act, or RP Act, non-citizens are excluded from this list, while Section 19 allows for the inclusion of all Indian citizens over the age of 18. Voter lists are typically revised before an election or after an administrative exercise like redrawing of constituencies, and there are two kinds of these revisions. 'Intensive', 'Summary', 'Special Intensive' The first is an 'intensive' revision. This is when the EC feels current lists are outdated or inaccurate, and is basically an exercise in completely re-creating a voter list, meaning personnel go house-to-house to collect fresh data. The second is a 'summary' revision. This is meant to be an annual exercise to refresh voter lists and only involves the Election Commission publishing the list and inviting people to correct, modify, or delete details. The 'special intensive' revision - a combination of the two - in Bihar is only carried out when the poll panel feels there are large-scale errors, and is allowed under Section 21(3) of the RP Act. Why Revision Of Voter Lists Is Needed A revision - 'intensive', 'summary', or 'special intensive' - helps remove ineligible voters and also add those who may have been missed in earlier lists, as well as include newly eligible voters. Importantly, it ensures migrant voters and shifting populations are accurately counted. On Monday the Election Commission said it had dropped 35 lakh names. The poll panel said 1.59 per cent of registered individuals, equivalent to 12.5 lakh voters, were found to have died. Another 2.2 per cent, or 17.5 lakh electors, had relocated and are no longer eligible to vote in the state. And 0.73 per cent, around 5.5 lakh, had double-registered. EC sources told NDTV this data underlined the importance of revising voter lists. Also last week, EC sources said door-to-door visits had revealed 'many' people from neighbouring countries, like Nepal, Bangladesh, and Myanmar, on the voter lists. Sources said these people managed to obtain Indian government documents like domicile certificates and ration cards in their name, and had been wrongly included in the voter list. Challenges In Voter List Revision The principal challenge is to ensure eligible voters are not disenfranchised. The reference is specifically to voters from poorer sections of society and from marginalised communities, who may not (now) have access to the documents required for re-verification. Inter and intra-state migrant populations are another at-risk community. A large chunk of Bihar's adult population, for example, moves to other states in search of employment. In most cases they retain voting rights at their place of birth but, because of a lack of education, awareness, and access to documents, cannot always prove this to be the case. Apart from these issues, even a statewide voter list revision requires significant funds and use of manpower, which may place additional strain on the poll body's resources. This is particularly a concern if the EC is scheduled to hold an election just months later, as it is in the case of Bihar. Bihar Voter List Row The Bihar exercise has run into trouble for two reasons - one, because it comes just months before an election in that state, and two, because the EC had said common government IDs, such as the Aadhaar and its own voter identity card, could not be used for re-verification. The opposition - the Congress and the Rashtriya Janata Dal - has argued a revision at this late stage is a 'conspiracy' to slash its support base by excluding lakhs of people, including those who have already voted in 10 major elections since the last revision. The opposition also questioned the legality of the exercise and flagged the poll body's decision to not accept commonly-used government IDs, such as the poll body's own identity card, for re-verification. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party-Janata Dal United has countered by accusing the opposition of trying to shield 'fake' voters, a charge buttressed by reports that foreign nationals had registered as voters. On Monday the Supreme Court - approached to stay the Bihar special intensive revision - refused to do so, although it did tell the Election Commission it had "serious doubts" about the exercise being completed in time for the Bihar election. The court also suggested the EC include common government IDs like the Aadhaar in the re-verification process to ensure all eligible voters can be identified. NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest updates from NDTV on your chat.
NDTV
34 minutes ago
- NDTV
3 Judges, 3 Cases, 2 Days: Supreme Court's 'Balance' Message On Free Speech
New Delhi: Three cases, three benches, two days -- the Supreme Court is sending a clear message: freedom of expression is not absolute; it must respect an individual's right to dignity and those misusing this freedom must face action. The top court's strong observations are significant in an era where social media has democratised public opinion, but made us vulnerable to virtual attacks and brutal trolling by strangers, often anonymous. Case 1: Article 19 vs Article 21 Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi today heard a case related to stand-up comics and podcasters, including Samay Raina, who are in trouble for controversial remarks in their shows. The influencers have been asked to respond to a petition that flagged their objectionable remarks on persons with disabilities. Sources said the court has taken serious note of these remarks. The top court also asked Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Centre, to prepare social media guidelines that balance freedom of speech and expression and rights of others. When Attorney General R Venkataramani said the proposed guidelines need to be discussed, Justice Kant said an open debate is needed. "There are many free advisors in the market. Ignoring them... the guidelines should be in conformity with constitutional principles balancing freedom and where the rights and duties start. We will have an open debate on such guidelines. let all stakeholders also come and give their viewpoints," he observed. "Suppose a race takes place between Article 19 and 21, Article 21 has to trump over Article 19," the court said. While Article 19 relates to freedom of expression, Article 21 pertains to the right to life. This is especially significant at a time when trolling and online attacks create mental stress and anxiety, and can also incite violence. The court noted that it needs to protect citizens' rights and ensure that nobody's dignity is violated. Case 2: 'Freedom Being Abused' A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing a cartoonist's petition for relief after an FIR was registered against him for allegedly sharing objectionable content on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and RSS workers. "Log kisi ko bhi, kuch bhi keh dete hain (People say anything to anyone). We will have to do something about it)," the bench said. While granting relief to the cartoonist Hemant Malviya, the bench noted that if he continued to share offensive social media posts, the Madhya Pradesh government would be free to take action. Malviya was accused of hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus and disturbing communal harmony. When his counsel, Vrinda Grover, said that the cartoon could be said to be in "poor taste". "But is it an offence?" she asked. Justice Dhulia replied, "Whatever we may do with this case, but this is definitely the case that the freedom of speech and expression is being abused." Case 3: 'Who Wants State To Step In' On Monday, a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition by Wajahat Khan, who filed a complaint against influencer Sharmistha Panoli in a hate speech case. Khan has now been arrested for his social media posts. He has said complaints have been registered against him in several states. He said these cases were in retaliation for his complaint against Panoli. Justice Nagarathna remarked that citizens must understand the value of freedom of expression. "...why can't the citizens themselves regulate themselves? Citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and expression. If they don't, then the State will step in and who wants the State to step in? Nobody wants the state to step in (sic)," she said. The bench remarked that reasonable restrictions on the right to free speech are needed and it cannot be a "100% absolute right". "Citizens are misusing this freedom. They just press a button and everything is posted online. Why are courts flooded with such cases? Why shouldn't there be guidelines for citizens?" he said. Focus On Free Speech Limits In Social Media Era Strong remarks by the top court judges in cases relating to freedom of speech suggest that the court may have decided, as a whole, to take a strong stand on objectionable social media remarks that often cite freedom of expression to seek legal relief. Earlier, in May, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai took note of objectionable social media posts targeting Justice Surya Kant. The Chief Justice had said the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, but this right comes with reasonable restrictions. NDTV spoke to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on this subject. "Internet as a medium of communication is totally different and distinct from conventional media through which freedom of speech has been exercised so far. The anonymity involved and the rapid global reach and the potential to cause severe personal and societal damage through misuse of social media require a totally different judicial treatment." The Centre's top lawyer said traditional jurisprudence developed for print and electronic media in earlier decades cannot be used to address the challenges posed by social media. "Social Media platforms monetise the addictive nature of the human race and arrogantly refuse to even recognise reasonable restrictions, much less follow even statutory regulations. This results in dangerous consequences. I am sure our judiciary will suitably respond by giving meaningful interpretation to the reasonability of restrictions, as is being done in other countries. Every nation is grappling with this menace. I am sure India will lead in giving a solution to the world through a landmark judgment," Mr Mehta said.
