Back
SUPREME COURT
Rohinton Fali Nariman, J
Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar Supreme Court of India and Others
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disagreement with procedural approach for death penalty reviews. (Para 1) |
| 2. framework of laws governing death penalty in india. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. judicial parameters for reviewing death penalty cases. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. arguments for oral hearings in death sentence cases. (Para 29 , 30 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 5. importance and context of oral hearings in reviews. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 6. mandate for limited oral hearings in death penalty reviews. (Para 44 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 74 , 75) |
1. I have had the privilege of reading the draft judgment prepared by my esteemed brother Rohinton Fali Nariman, J. With utmost respect, I am unable to agree with the view taken by him that a review petition filed by a convict whose death penalty is affirmed by this Court is required to be heard in open Court but cannot be decided by circulation. The background facts and the submissions are elaborately mentioned by my learned brother. I do not propose to repeat them.
2. Extinguishment of life of a subject by the State as a punishment for an offence is still sanctioned by law in this country. Art.21 of the Constitution itself recogni
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
