😈➡️😊 Reformative Theory of Punishment In India
⚡ Background- Rules exclude certain
categories of offences including the offences relating to terrorist crimes from the purview of remission.
⚡ Issue- ‘as to whether exclusion of certain categories of offences from the scope of grant of remission by way
of rules and guidelines is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of COI?
⚡ Ratio Decidendi-
1. Two Policies conflict-
Generally the policy of remission at the time of conviction will prevail over present policy but latter can be applied in case it is beneficial.
2. The Prison manuals cannot supercede Statutes. (20 years ≠ L.I. Gopal Vinayak Godse vs.
State of Maharashtra, 196)
3. Article 14 and Intelligible differentia-
class apart and the classification of crimes made in the impugned Rules is reasonable and not arbitrary. It has a rational basis/reasonable nexus to the object (destruction over erstwhile J&K) and the argument that delhi prison manual doesn't have this provision is not good because terrorism in Delhi and J&K are different latter is suffering from 3 decades.
4. Theory of Punishment exception- The concept of reformative sentencing policy cannot be stretched to tyrannical limits so as to extend an undue favour to a person who has been convicted of a heinous offence after following due procedure of law.
5. Article 21- A person once convited for terrorism infringing others right to life and given opportunity to defend his liberty can be curtailed after following due procedure of law.
6. It is well within the jurisdiction of the executive to frame a statutory policy to exclude certain types of crimes from the purview of remission, provided it is based upon intelligible differentia. (Dadu @Tulsi Dass vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 & Union of India vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan, 2016)
7. Highest executive power prescribed under the Constitution under Articles 72 and 161 shall always remain untouched and can be exercised without any restriction.
(Maru Ram vs. Union of India and another, 1981 and UOI v. Sriharan, 2016)
⚡ Latin Maxims Used-
1. Per Contra- on the other hand
2. Res Integra- untouched matter (issue not decided)
@CurrentLegalGK
⚡ Background- Rules exclude certain
categories of offences including the offences relating to terrorist crimes from the purview of remission.
⚡ Issue- ‘as to whether exclusion of certain categories of offences from the scope of grant of remission by way
of rules and guidelines is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of COI?
⚡ Ratio Decidendi-
1. Two Policies conflict-
Generally the policy of remission at the time of conviction will prevail over present policy but latter can be applied in case it is beneficial.
2. The Prison manuals cannot supercede Statutes. (20 years ≠ L.I. Gopal Vinayak Godse vs.
State of Maharashtra, 196)
3. Article 14 and Intelligible differentia-
class apart and the classification of crimes made in the impugned Rules is reasonable and not arbitrary. It has a rational basis/reasonable nexus to the object (destruction over erstwhile J&K) and the argument that delhi prison manual doesn't have this provision is not good because terrorism in Delhi and J&K are different latter is suffering from 3 decades.
4. Theory of Punishment exception- The concept of reformative sentencing policy cannot be stretched to tyrannical limits so as to extend an undue favour to a person who has been convicted of a heinous offence after following due procedure of law.
5. Article 21- A person once convited for terrorism infringing others right to life and given opportunity to defend his liberty can be curtailed after following due procedure of law.
6. It is well within the jurisdiction of the executive to frame a statutory policy to exclude certain types of crimes from the purview of remission, provided it is based upon intelligible differentia. (Dadu @Tulsi Dass vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 & Union of India vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan, 2016)
7. Highest executive power prescribed under the Constitution under Articles 72 and 161 shall always remain untouched and can be exercised without any restriction.
(Maru Ram vs. Union of India and another, 1981 and UOI v. Sriharan, 2016)
⚡ Latin Maxims Used-
1. Per Contra- on the other hand
2. Res Integra- untouched matter (issue not decided)
@CurrentLegalGK