The Supreme Court has given relief to a curative petitioner for the first time since it was introduced, in this case on March 9. Imagine if Justice Pasayat had given death penalty in this case, when it was first decided by the Supreme Court, and the sentence duly executed, what would have been the decision of the Supreme Court on the curative petition? Is it not the right time for the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of death penalty afresh in the light of the success of this curative petition?
Curative Petitions: The first-ever success
Further reading
The first part of this analysis delved into the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors v. Union of India, where it misread the International Rule of Law (IRoL) by focusing on...
Blurb: A petition was filed in the Supreme Court, seeking the suspension of military exports from India to Israel in light of the unfolding armed conflict in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author raised and...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author...
A fortnightly feature inspired by I-CONnect’s weekly “What’s New in Public Law” feature that addresses the lacuna of a one-stop-shop public law newsletter in the Indian legal...
A mass movement led by students has ushered in a new dawn in Bangladesh. What began as a claim for reform of the quota system transformed into a national movement to oust Bangladesh’s long-standing...
It is very interesting to see the order passed in the Review petition that preceded the Curative petition. It is available from the Supreme Court website, and reads as follows:
REVIEW PETITION (CRL) NO. OF 2009
(D37915/2008)
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1362-1363/2004
Raghubir & Ors. ..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of M.P. ..Respondent(s)
ORDER
Delay condoned.
We have carefully gone through the Review Petition and the
connected papers. We do not find any ground, whatsoever, to entertain
the same. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
……………. .J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
……………….J.
(R.V. RAVEENDRAN)
………………..J.
(LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)
New Delhi;
February 4, 2009.
The Supreme Court has time and again held that there is a need to give 'reasons' for an order. The above order is an example of how, the Supreme Court itself has not been able to follow it's mandate; and the subsequent Curative petition only establishes that, with greatest respects, the Court had erred in the previous two rounds (Appeal and Review). Whereas, the Court has tremendous pressure of work, and the Indian Supreme Court judges are probably required to render the highest number of judgments per judge, by any Apex Court in the world, yet can that by itself become a ground to avoid giving reasons? Especially in a matter that directly clinches on 'life and liberty'?
Rishabh Sancheti