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?
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
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1362-1363/2004
Raghubir & Ors. ..Petitioner(s)
State of M.P. ..Respondent(s)
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.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
(LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)
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'?
Join the discussion