In Re: Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances To Be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences vs .

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1508

UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
In Re: Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances To Be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Attorney General for India Mr. Ankur Talwar, Advocate, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Advocate, Ms. Chinmayee chandra, Advocate, Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Advocate, Mr. Shikhil Suri, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Advocate, /Amicus Curiae; Mr. K. Parameshwar, Advocate, Ms. A. Sregurupriya, Advocate, Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Advocate, Mohd. Rizwan Ahmad, Advocate, Mohd. Mujahid Ahmad, Advocate, Mr. Shakti U. Sheikh, Advocate, Ms. Shruti, Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Advocate, Ms. Shivani Misra, Advocate, Ms. Ankita Choudhary, Advocate, Mr. Pashupati Nath Razdan, Advocate, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Advocate, Mr. Prakhar Srivastav, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate, Counsel for the Parties.

ORDER

1. In so far as the main issues which have been presented in this Suo Motu writ petition are concerned, we have heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Attorney General for India. We have also heard Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Advocate who are appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and Ms. Shreya Rastogi, learned advocate appearing for Project 39-A.

2. Since the issues which were raised during discussion call for deeper consideration, we adjourn hearing of the main matter to 27.07.2022.

3. One of the features which came up for discussion was the policy of the State of Madhya Pradesh, which was adverted to in the order dated 24.02.2022. Our attention is invited to some of the documents to submit that the State was seeking to incentivise securing of capital punishment on part of the Public Prosecutors and that would undermine the prosecutorial independence, prosecutorial discretion, fair trial and judicial independence.

4. The arguments on the policy were advanced by Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. Shreya Rastogi, learned advocate, while Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned advocate for the State argued in response.

5. Arguments on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 1508

UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUDHANSHU DHULIAIn Re: Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances To Be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences – AppellantVersus. – Respondent

UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
In Re: Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances To Be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent