NEW DELHI: A bench led by Justice Uday U Lalit requested the aid of Attorney General KK Venugopal in the matter, which was filed suo motu in the wake of several challenges emerging from the court’s historic judgment on death penalty cases in the Bachan Singh case, which was issued more than four decades ago.
The Supreme Court began procedures on its own motion (suo motu) on Tuesday to overhaul the way death sentences are handed down by courts in the nation, stating that it is time to bring more impartiality to the criminal justice system.
A bench led by Justice Uday U Lalit requested the aid of Attorney General KK Venugopal in the matter, which was filed suo motu in the wake of several challenges emerging from the court’s historic judgement on death penalty cases in the Bachan Singh case, which was issued more than four decades ago.
The Bachan Singh decision created the “rarest of rare” crime theory in imposing death sentence, requiring a comparative study of aggravating and mitigating factors before concluding that hanging was the only appropriate penalty for a criminal.
Regretting that a judge’s personality and the circumstances surrounding a case may have an impact on the trial courts, the bench, which also included justices S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha, emphasised the importance of a thorough examination of the mitigating circumstances surrounding an accused in order for a court to determine whether the death penalty is the only appropriate punishment in the case.
The trial courts, according to the court, are at the very heart of the issue. “A judge’s personality and the circumstances around him or her may influence a verdict in a death penalty case…we want to ensure that a trial court can take an objective perspective… We will enlist the help of the erudite Attorney General, since he is the most qualified officer to make representations on behalf of the government.
The court nominated senior attorney Siddharth Dave and advocate K Parmeshwar as amicus curiae to assist it in the issue registered suo motu on the motion, which was moved through Project39A, and set April 22 as the next date of hearing. The application raised concerns about claimed flaws in the current method of report creation by probation officers and other jail administration employees. Project 39A is criminal justice research and legal assistance initiative that focuses on death sentence cases and is run by National Law University in Delhi.
The panel was considering an appeal in a Madhya Pradesh death penalty case. It ordered the Supreme Court’s decision in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab to be enforced on February 14 in the same case (1980). The Bachan Singh case established that a judge must examine both the offense and the offender before deciding whether the death sentence is the only appropriate punishment in the circumstances. It was also decided that the aggravating and mitigating elements, which are based on the facts and circumstances of the case, should be given priority.
On that day, the bench requested information from state government officials on the condemned’s psychiatric evaluation and behaviour, which it claimed would help it determine an appropriate sentence for him.
The court approved a motion by the accused’s counsel to question his client in jail to gather further information regarding his congenital, mental, or neurological disorders, as well as tracking the social background of the individual involved that may have had an influence, when the case was resumed on Tuesday.
Simultaneously, the court said that it will begin a separate suo motu hearing to examine establishing rules for all courts to follow in instances involving death sentences.
“As laid down in Bachan Singh case and in instances following, any situation that has the potential to be a mitigating circumstance must inevitably be considered while assessing whether the death penalty be imposed or not,” the court wrote in its judgement.
It was emphasised that a probation officer’s analysis may not take into account an accused’s entire profile because it is completed at the conclusion of the trial. On the other hand, the bench stated that interrogating an accused right at the start of the trial can help the trial court conduct a thorough study when deciding whether or not to impose a death sentence.
“In order to ensure completeness in the matter, we find it appropriate to serve a notice to the Attorney General before we consider laying down any recommendations,” the court wrote in its ruling. The member secretary of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) was also given notice to attend at the next hearing date and assist the court.
We hope that this article helped you In some way or another! For more such information, follow us on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Telegram, or simply subscribe to our newsletter.
DOWNLOAD OUR FREE LEGAL MAGAZINE – Law Manthan 2nd Edition
