Latest news with #Article32
The Print
14-07-2025
- Politics
- The Print
10 convicts from Jharkhand, including 6 on death row, move SC over long-pending verdict on appeals
Monday, a bench led by Justice Surya Kant took serious note of the petition and issued a notice to the Jharkhand HC for its response. 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
Hans India
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Supreme Court To Hear Challenges Against Bihar's Electoral Roll Revision
Multiple petitions challenging the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of Bihar's electoral rolls are scheduled for hearing in the Supreme Court today. The legal challenge comes from various quarters including transparency advocacy group Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), activist Yogendra Yadav, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, and several political parties who have termed the exercise both "arbitrary" and "unconstitutional." The controversy centers around the Election Commission's June 24 announcement of a comprehensive revision of voter lists ahead of Bihar's assembly elections scheduled for October-November. This Special Intensive Revision represents an unprecedented approach where all registered voters must re-establish their eligibility through fresh documentation and applications. The Election Commission has defended this exercise by pointing to several factors including rapid urbanization and migration patterns, the need to include newly eligible 18-year-olds and previously unregistered citizens, unreported deaths in voter records, and concerns about foreign illegal immigrants appearing on voter rolls. The commission aims to complete draft electoral rolls by August 1, followed by a period for objections and scrutiny. Opposition parties and civil society groups have raised serious concerns about the implementation and potential consequences of this revision. They argue that the process fundamentally shifts the burden of proof onto individual citizens, requiring them to submit fresh applications with documentary evidence of citizenship by July 25, 2025. The requirements exclude commonly held documents like Aadhaar cards and ration cards, instead mandating proof of parents' identity and other documentation that may be difficult to obtain. The petitioners argue that this approach violates Article 32 of the Constitution and undermines the universal right to adult suffrage. They contend that given Bihar's high rates of migration and displacement, requiring documents dating back decades could potentially disenfranchise millions of eligible voters. The timeline for completion has also been criticized as unrealistic, requiring the training of approximately 100,000 Block Level Officers within a month during Bihar's monsoon and flood season. The legal challenge has been accompanied by political protests, with the INDIA bloc organizing a 'Bihar bandh' on July 9 to oppose the revision exercise. Opposition leaders including Congress's Rahul Gandhi and RJD's Tejashwi Yadav have participated in demonstrations against what they view as a systematic attempt to manipulate voter rolls. The Election Commission has remained firm in its position, citing Article 326 of the Constitution which defines voter eligibility criteria. The commission has also claimed that over 57% of the state's 7.9 million current voters have already submitted new enumeration forms, with scrutiny of these applications now underway. The Supreme Court's decision on these petitions could have significant implications for how electoral roll revisions are conducted across India and may influence the timeline for Bihar's upcoming assembly elections.
Time of India
06-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
‘Great danger to democracy': Mahua Moitra moves SC over EC's voter list revision in Bihar; calls it ‘crazy exercise to disenfranchise'
NEW DELHI: Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra has moved the Supreme Court against the Election Commission of India 's (ECI) move to conduct a special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, calling the process a direct threat to democratic rights. In a scathing critique, Moitra accused the poll body of acting at the behest of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and attempting to disenfranchise millions, particularly migrant and poor voters. "The All India Trinamool Congress under the leadership of Mamata Banerjee has pointed out the great danger to democracy which is the new special intensive revision that the Election Commission has started in Bihar and plans to start in Bengal right after and in other states as well," Moitra said. "I have petitioned the Supreme Court last night on this and it is violative." Moitra argued that the process violates multiple constitutional provisions — Articles 14, 19 and 21 — as well as Articles 3, 325 and 326. 'This special intensive revision is violative… It is also against the Representation of People's Act 1960 and the Registration of Electors Rules,' she said. According to her, the SIR introduces 11 new documents as proof of eligibility — none of which includes commonly used IDs like Aadhaar or ration cards. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025 Top Trending local enterprise accounting software [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo 'Now apart from your birth certificate, no other document like a matriculation certificate or a PSU card gives you the place of birth,' she said. Moitra warned that the requirement to establish parents' place of birth in some cases both parents would disenfranchise 'two and a half to three crore people in Bihar' and could soon be applied in Bengal as well. 'This is completely against the rights of the poor migrant workers who will have no opportunity in the short time frame to actually have to download forms and upload them again. I mean, this whole thing is a crazy exercise and its only goal is to disenfranchise voters,' she said. Moitra added that the ECI had strayed from its mandate: 'Instead of doing that, the Election Commissioner of India has taken it upon itself to become an arm of the BJP… This is a great shame.' PTI reported that Moitra's petition, filed under Article 32, also seeks to stop the ECI from issuing similar directives in other states. A similar plea has been filed by the Association of Democratic Reforms, warning that the exercise could 'arbitrarily and without due process' remove lakhs of names from the rolls. Defending the revision, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar said nearly every political party in Bihar had raised concerns about inaccuracies in the voters' list, prompting the EC to act. He stressed that those who were listed in the 2003 roll need not submit any birth-related documents. But for those born after 1987, documents proving a parent's place of birth are required, and for those born after 2004, proof for both parents is necessary. The EC insists that the exercise is intended to weed out ineligible and non-resident voters, including illegal immigrants. The revision, which began on June 24, is scheduled to run until July 25, and is being carried out by over one lakh booth-level officers across Bihar.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
Unfolding investigation of Seaman Angelina Resendiz's death
NORFOLK, Va. (WAVY) — 10 On Your Side is learning more about the next steps in the unfolding case of Seaman Angelina Resendiz's death. NCIS: Body confirmed as missing Norfolk Naval Station sailor; Navy sailor in confinement A fellow sailor is in pretrial confinement in connection with her death. The sailor's name has not been officially released, but he is likely confined at the Naval Consolidated Brig in Chesapeake, where individuals in pre-trial confinements are housed. 'He is believed to be there if he is in pretrial confinement in this area. That is exactly where he is,' said Attorney Robert Canoy. Active-duty military attorneys are called Judge Advocates or JAG Officers for short, and that is the type of work that Attorney Robert Canoy did for 11 years before becoming a private attorney with McCormack & McCormack. Within two days, a probable cause hearing is expected. There is an Initial Review Officer's Hearing within seven days to determine if he gets released or held in confinement. 'Essentially, at that point, the prosecution has to demonstrate to that officer that there's evidence supporting the charges, probable cause, or what could be charges and that he is either a flight risk or a danger to commit additional misconduct in order to hold him there,' said Canoy. Secondly, there is an Article 32 Preliminary Hearing, 'Similar to what we do in civilian court, that has to happen first. That would kind of be his first major public hearing,' Canoy said. Then, general court-martial, arraignment, and trial happens afterwards. 'In terms of the system, like the biggest differences between civilian and military court hearings, you do not have to have a unanimous verdict in the military. Three quarters is good enough, so those are kind of some of the basic differences,' Canoy said. Bonds are handled differently as well. 'So, there are no cash bonds or money to get out. It's just whether they believe there's grounds to hold him or not. There is no such thing as bonds in the military in terms of an unsecured or secured bond. Like you pay money, and you come out. It's either they believe that there's sufficient evidence, that he's a flight risk, or a danger to commit additional misconduct or not, and that those things don't have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but a lower standard of evidence,' Canoy said. 'If those things exist, they will hold him there pending trial, and if they do not, then they would have to release him. That decision then becomes reviewable by a military judge down the road. An actual judge.' The mother of Esmerelda Castle has issues with how the investigation was handled. 'She has an issue with the communication of identification. She has an issue that she received word three to four hours early prior to being notified by NCIS,' said family spokesperson Michael Muhammad. Muhammad told 10 On Your Side the most troubling issue was the delay in the issuance of the Ashanti alert. 'Six days later, they issued a critically missing adult on the Ashanti alert. The unfortunate reality is critical time had passed,' said Muhammad. The mother of Esmerelda Castle is also attempting to figure out the suspect's relationship to her daughter. 'Mom is talking to friends. She's talking to coworkers and people who have known him and have known her daughter to try and understand what this connection was and what this relationship was,' said Muhammad. Attorney Robert Canoy said the suspect's name will be unveiled no later than Monday. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Time of India
11-06-2025
- Time of India
Thug Life plea: SC asks petitioners to go to HC
The Supreme Court declined an urgent hearing regarding a petition from the Karnataka Theatres Association requesting protection against threats from fringe groups opposing the Tamil film Thug Life, featuring Kamal petitioners, filing under Article 32 of the Constitution, stated that certain organisations had issued explicit threats to incinerate Karnataka theatres planning to screen the production house was compelled to seek legal protection due to escalating threats, as presented before a Vacation Bench led by Justice PK Mishra rejected the petition's urgency, stating, 'If you are afraid the theatres might be set on fire, keep fire extinguishers ready.' He suggested the petitioners seek redress from the High Court, noting the case did not require Supreme Court intervention. 'Why file an Article 32 petition here? Go to the High Court,' he stated.
