Comprehension

Article 21 of the Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. Conversely, we think that a person is entitled to the protection of his liberty only in accordance with law. When a person’s liberty cannot be violated in breach of a law, can a person’s liberty be protected even in the face of a breach or violation of law? In other words, should rule of law prevail over personal liberty of a person or vice-versa? Further, should this Court weigh in favour of a person’s freedom and liberty even when it has been established that the same was granted in violation of law? Should the scales of justice tilt against rule of law? We wish to make it clear that only when rule of law prevails will liberty and all other fundamental rights would prevail under our Constitution including the right to equality and equal protection of law as enshrined in Article 14 thereof. Justice Nagarathna, who authored the judgement, began her pronouncement by invoking classical Greek Philosopher Plato. “Punishment is to be inflicted not for the sake of vengeance but for the sake of prevention and reformation. In his treatise, Plato reasons that the lawgiver, as far as he can, ought to imitate the doctor who does not apply his drug with a view to pain only, but to do the patient good. This curative theory of punishment likens penalty to medicine administered for the sake of the one being
chastised. Thus, if a criminal is curable, he ought to be improved by education and other suitable arts and the set free as a better citizen and less of a burden to the state. This postulate lies at the heart of the policy of remission.” Having said that, she also pointed out the competing interests involved, of the rights of the victim’s family to justice and the right of the convicts to a second chance by remission or reduction of their sentence. She added, “A woman deserves respect howsoever high or low she may otherwise be considered in the society or whatever faith she may follow or whatever creed she may belong to. Can heinous crime against women permit remission of the convicts by a reduction in their sentence and
by granting them liberty?”
(This extract has been taken from Bilkis Yakoob Rasul v. Union of India (2024) 5 SCC 481)

Question: 1

On which grounds remission can be denied?

Updated On: Dec 3, 2024
  • On the discretion of the appropriate government
  • On the central government's discretion
  • On the state government's discretion
  • None of the above
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

- Remission refers to the reduction or suspension of a sentence, and it is generally granted at the discretion of the appropriate government.
- The appropriate government is the state government under whose jurisdiction the offense was committed and the convict was sentenced.
Thus, the correct answer is (A).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

Which of the following is not related to remission?

Updated On: Dec 3, 2024
  • State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Prem Raj, 2003 7 SCC
  • Sarat Chandra Rabha v. Khagendranath, AIR 1961 SC 334
  • Both (A) and (B)
  • Neither (A) nor (B)
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

- State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Prem Raj (2003 7 SCC) and Sarat Chandra Rabha v. Khagendranath (AIR 1961 SC 334) are related to the application of remission in different contexts.
- Both are not directly linked to the legal principles of remission as defined under the Cr.P.C. and related case law.
Thus, the correct answer is (C).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3

Which of the following needs to be considered while entertaining an application for remission under the provisions of Cr.P.C., 1973?

Updated On: Dec 3, 2024
  • The application for remission under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 could be only before the Government of the State within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant was convicted (appropriate Government) and not before any other Government within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant may have been transferred on conviction or where the offence has occurred
  • A consideration for remission must be by way of an application under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 which has to be made by the convict or on his behalf. In the first instance in as much as a person serving a life sentence cannot seek remission be noted whether there is compliance with Section 433A of the Cr.P.C., 1973 must unless fourteen years of imprisonment has been completed
  • Both (A) and (B)
  • Only (A)
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

- According to Section 432 of Cr.P.C., remission applications can only be made before the appropriate government (the government in the jurisdiction where the conviction oc curred).
- Additionally, the convict must meet the requirements of Section 433A, which stipulates that a convict serving a life sentence must complete 14 years of imprisonment before applying for remission.
Thus, the correct answer is (C).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4

According to Section 432 (2) of Cr.P.C., when deciding on an application for remission, the government may seek the opinion of the presiding judge. In Bilkis Bano Case, how did the court interpret the expression "may" regarding the government's duty to seek the opinion of the judge?

Updated On: Dec 3, 2024
  • The expression "may" indicate that it is optional for the government to seek the opinion of the presiding judge
  • The expression "may" mean that government can seek the opinion of any judge, not necessarily the presiding judge
  • The expression "may" must be interpreted as "shall", making it mandatory for the government to seek the opinion of the presiding judge
  • The expression "may" allow the presiding judge to refuse providing an opinion on the application for remission
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

- In the Bilkis Bano case, the court held that the word ”may” in Section 432(2) should be interpreted as ”shall”, making it mandatory for the government to seek the opinion of the presiding judge before granting remission.
Thus, the correct answer is (C).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5

In Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the provision for commutation of a sentence of imprisonment of life has replaced the term 'not exceeding fourteen years' or 'fine' of the Cr.P.C. with:

Updated On: Dec 3, 2024
  • not less than seven years
  • not less than ten years
  • not more than twenty years
  • seven years
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

- In the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the provision for commutation of a life sentence has replaced the earlier provision of ”not exceeding fourteen years or fine” with ”not less than ten years”.
Thus, the correct answer is (B).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam

View More Questions