A. D. KOSHAL, P. N. BHAGWATI, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, V. R. KRISHNA IYER, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD
Maru Ram: Bhimwa Ram: Shanker: Krishna: Raghubir Singh: Rampuja Singh: Nirbhai Singh: Balkrishan Gupta: Veny Singh: Babulal Gautam: Om Prakash: Nagebhushanam Patnaik: Raghunath Singh: Jagir Singh: Ajit Singh: Munshi Ram: Faqir Singh: Janardhan: Sunder Ram – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: State Of Punjab: State Of Punjab: Union Of Indi – Respondent
The provided legal judgment primarily addresses issues related to the constitutionality of certain provisions concerning life imprisonment, remission, and the exercise of pardon powers under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution. It discusses the legislative competence, the scope of executive powers, and the principles of non-arbitrariness and rationality in the exercise of those powers. The judgment emphasizes the importance of constitutional safeguards, the purpose of punishment, and the principles of justice, fairness, and human rights in the context of criminal law and penology.
Regarding the anti-defection law, the judgment does not explicitly or directly address or discuss this law. There is no mention of the provisions, scope, or constitutional validity of the anti-defection law within the content of this judgment. The focus remains on issues related to life imprisonment, remission schemes, pardon powers, and constitutional principles governing executive and legislative authority.
In summary, this judgment does not contain any commentary or findings concerning the anti-defection law or its constitutional implications.
JUDGMENT
KRISHNA IYER, J. (On behalf of himself and Chandrachud CJI. and Bhagwati J.) :- A procession of life convicts, well over two thousand strong, with more joining the march even as the arguments were on, has vicariously mobbed this court, through their learned counsel, carrying constitutional missiles in hand and demanding liberty beyond the bars. They challenge the vires of Section 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Procedure Code, for short) which compels caging of two classes of prisoners, at least for fourteen eternal internal years, regardless of the benign remissions and compassionate concessions sanctioned by prison law and human justice. Their despair is best expressed in the bitter lines of Oscar Wilde. The Ballad of Reading Gaol.
I know not whether Laws be right,
Or whether Laws be wrong,
All that we know who lie in gaol
Is that the wall is strong;
And that each day is like a year.
A year whose days are long.
(Emphasis added)
But broken hearts cannot break prison walls. Since prisons are built with stones of law, the key to liberation too is in laws custody. So, counsel have piled up long and learned arguments punctuated with evocative rhetoric. But judges themselves ar
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
relied on : Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra
Surat Chandra Rabha v. Khagendranath Nath
Boucher Peirre Andre v. Supdt., central Jail
Sarat Chandra Rabha v. Khagendranath Nath
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab
R. D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
referred to : Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Hiralal Mallick v. State of Bihar
relied on : Aswini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose
Referred to : Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra
relied on : Sarat Chandra Rabha v. Khagendranath Nath
Sambha Ji Krishna Ji v. State of Maharashtra
Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.