Team  SoOLEGAL

RESTRICTIONS CAN BE IMPOSED BY THE STATE WHILE CONSIDERING REMISSION CLAIMS: Supreme Court

Team SoOLEGAL 23 Apr 2019 2:13pm

RESTRICTIONS CAN BE IMPOSED BY THE STATE WHILE CONSIDERING REMISSION CLAIMS: Supreme Court

The constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 was in question before the Apex Court.

The said Rule was struck down by Rajasthan High Court on the following two grounds:

1. The Rules not having been placed before the Legislature of the State as required by Section 59(2) of the Act did not acquire statutory force.

2. That the Rules could not have been framed contrary to Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Maru Ram vs. Union of India. The State of Rajasthan had assailed this judgment before the Apex Court. 
By virtue of the said Rule, an application for shortening of sentences and premature release of a prisoner who has been sentenced-to imprisonment for life for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishment provided by law or who has been sentenced to death but his sentence has been commuted under Section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, into one of imprisonment for life, shall be considered only after he has served 14 years of actual imprisonment excluding remission but including the period of detention spent during enquiry, investigation or trial, on the condition that such a prisoner shall also have to earn a minimum of 4 years of remission in order to be eligible for consideration. 
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha in State of Rajasthan vs. Mukesh Sharma made an observation that the Rules need not necessarily be laid down before the Legislature prior to promulgation. No time limit has been prescribed for laying has been provided.

The use of words "as soon as" joined with the absence of any consequence for not laying makes the provision directory and not mandatory, said the bench. 
The High Court judgment was set aside, thereby upholding the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006.



Tagged: Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules 2006   Supreme Court   Constitutional Validity   Rule 8(2)(i)   Claims of Remission  
Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
New Members view all

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com