Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.
In Re: Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances To Be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences – Appellant
Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No(s). 1 of 2022
Decided On : 19-05-2022
Suo Motu Writ Petition - Policy of State of Madhya Pradesh - The court heard arguments on the policy of incentivizing securing of capital punishment by the State of Madhya Pradesh, which was alleged to undermine prosecutorial independence, prosecutorial discretion, fair trial, and judicial independence.
Fact of the Case:
The court adjourned the hearing of the main matter to consider the issues raised, including the policy of the State of Madhya Pradesh seeking to incentivize securing of capital punishment by public prosecutors.
Finding of the Court:
The court heard arguments on the policy issue and reserved the order for pronouncement after the summer vacation.
Issues: The policy of the State of Madhya Pradesh seeking to incentivize securing of capital punishment and its potential impact on prosecutorial independence, prosecutorial discretion, fair trial, and judicial independence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision on the policy issue is reserved for pronouncement after the summer vacation.
Final Decision: The final decision on the policy issue is pending and will be pronounced after the summer vacation.
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 the policy issue concluded and the order is reserved which shall be pronounced after Summer Vacation.
AI
The court is considering the potential impact of the State of Madhya Pradesh's policy on incentivizing securing of capital punishment on prosecutorial independence, prosecutorial discretion, fair tri....
The main legal point established is the duty to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to ensure a fair trial, as well as the duty of the Prosecutor to be impartial and present all material facts before....
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
