Jump to content
Sajib Nandi

Death penalty better than entire life behind bars: Supreme Court

Recommended Posts

Sajib Nandi

Reported by Economictimes.indiatimes.com on Jul 23, 2015

Death penalty better than entire life behind bars: Supreme Court - The Economic Times

 

The award of life imprisonment with a rider that it means "remainder of life" today came under sharp attack from the Supreme Court which said that it would be better to award death penalty to such convicts.

 

"All of us live in hope, if this is the prevailing situation then there will be no hope for such convicts. What is the point in keeping a man in jail for whole life... Give him the death sentence. That will be better," a five-judge constitutional bench, headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu, said.

 

The remarks came while hearing a petition of the Centre against Tamil Nadu Government's decision to set free convicts of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case in which the court today allowed states to exercise power of remission in certain class of cases.

 

During the hearing, the bench asked the Centre about the rationale behind providing life imprisonment till the death.

 

"We follow the reformatory penal system," the bench said, adding that if there is no scope of remission, then why a convict, serving life term, would try to reform himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Does that mean that the term "life imprisonment" becomes redundant ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GUNASELVAM_V

Life Imprisionment in my view it is not for the convicts to get reformed, it is for others to know that you will not be living in normal society hereafter in your entire life time which is the greatest punishment than the capital punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

The question as to whether or not it is morally acceptable for the state to execute people, and if so under what circumstances, has been debated for centuries.

The ethical problems involved include the general moral issues of punishment with the added problem of whether it is ever morally right to deprive a human being of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
girishagrawal

With due respect I wish to submit that though life imprisonment is awarded however the culprits are normally freed after 14 years. That way they return to society but there is no data that they are reformed afterwards. On the contrary most probably end up bigger criminals because of the company they get in the jails. Also many small criminals turn into professional criminals if they can't be rehabilitated. In most of the Arabian countries crime rate is very low because of the swift course of law and harsh punishment. So we should decide what exactly we want a criminalised society or a crime free society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

Karmanye Vadhikaraste, Ma phaleshou kada chana,

 

Ma Karma Phala Hetur Bhurmatey Sangostva Akarmani

 

कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन।

मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि॥

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
Karmanye Vadhikaraste, Ma phaleshou kada chana,

 

Ma Karma Phala Hetur Bhurmatey Sangostva Akarmani

 

कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन।

मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि॥

 

For those interested in knowing the meaning:

 

Karmanye Vadhikaraste, Ma phaleshou kada chana – You have the right to perform your actions,but you are not entitled to the fruits of the actions.

Ma Karma Phala Hetur Bhurmatey Sangostva Akarmani – Do not let the fruit be the purpose of your actions, and therefore you won’t be attached to not doing your duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      Find here the original Supreme court judgement on Aadhaar.
      (1)        The requirement under Aadhaar Act to give one's demographic and biometric information does not violate fundamental right of privacy.
      (2)        The provisions of Aadhaar Act requiring demographic and biometric information from a resident for Aadhaar Number pass three­fold test as laid down in Puttaswamy (supra) case, hence cannot be said to be unconstitutional.
      (3)        Collection of data, its storage and use does not violate fundamental Right of Privacy.
      (4)    Aadhaar Act does not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance.
      (5)        Aadhaar Act and Regulations provides protection and safety of the data received from individuals.
      (6)        Section 7 of the Aadhaar is constitutional. The provision does not deserve to be struck down on account of denial in some cases of right to claim on account of failure of authentication.
      (7)        The State while enlivening right to food, right to shelter etc. envisaged under Article 21 cannot encroach upon the right of privacy of beneficiaries nor former can be given precedence over the latter.
      (8)        Provisions of Section 29 is constitutional and does not deserves to be struck down.
      (9)        Section 33 cannot be said to be unconstitutional as it provides for the use of Aadhaar data base for police investigation nor it can be  said to violate protection granted under Article 20(3).
      (10)      Section 47 of the Aadhaar Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it does not allow an individual who finds that there is a violation of Aadhaar Act to initiate any criminal process.
      (11)      Section 57, to the extent, which permits use of Aadhaar by the State or any body corporate or person, in pursuant to any contract to this effect is unconstitutional and void. Thus, the last phrase in main provision of Section 57, i.e. “or any contract to this effect” is struck down.
      (12)      Section 59 has validated all actions taken by the Central Government under the notifications dated 28.01.2009    and 12.09.2009 and all actions shall be deemed to have been taken under the Aadhaar Act.
      (13)      Parental consent for providing biometric information under Regulation 3 & demographic information under Regulation 4 has to be read for enrolment of children between 5 to 18 years to uphold the constitutionality of Regulations 3 & 4 of Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.
      (14)      Rule 9 as amended by PMLA (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 is not unconstitutional and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 & 300A of the Constitution and Sections 3, 7 & 51 of the Aadhaar Act. Further Rule 9 as amended is not ultra vires to PMLA Act, 2002.
      (15)      Circular dated 23.03.2017 being unconstitutional is set aside.
      (16)      Aadhaar Act has been rightly passed as Money Bill.  The decision of Speaker certifying the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 as Money Bill is not immuned from Judicial Review.
      (17)      Section 139­AA does not breach fundamental Right of Privacy as per Privacy Judgment in Puttaswamy case.
      (18)      The Aadhaar Act does not violate the interim orders passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012 and other Writ Petitions.

    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      In this context a reference was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under: 35.....
      “It is also not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of ‘information’ in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.” 

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy