Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.58 seconds)
Sunkari Yadamma vs State Of Telangana on 1 June, 2021 cites

Bachan Singh Etc. Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1982

i) There is demand to abolish death penalty throughout the World. The said demand is serious in the India. Various Organizations including Organizations dealing with civil liberties have been demanding to abolish death penalty. They have also resorted to several methods of protest including conducting of KL,J W.P. Nos.20421 of 2019 & batch 7 seminars, workshops, rallies, dharnas, giving representations to various Constitutional Authorities and filing of petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. The said issue was fell for consideration before the Apex Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab1, and the Apex Court dismissed the said contention holding that there should be death penalty in certain cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 112 - Cited by 863 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 12 January, 1961

v) In State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh4, the Apex Court relying on the principle laid down by it in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra [1961 AIR 600] and Maru Ram2 held that power under Articles - 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India is absolute and cannot be lettered by any statutory provision, such 3 . (1982) 3 SCC 209 4 . (1990) 2 SCC 661 KL,J W.P. Nos.20421 of 2019 & batch 21 as Sections - 432, 433 and 433A of Cr.P.C. This power cannot be altered, modified or interfered with in any manner whatsoever by any statutory provisions or Prison Rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 227 - Full Document

State Of Haryana vs Mahender Singh & Ors on 2 November, 2007

viii) In State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh7, the Apex Court held that although no convict can be said to have any constitutional right for obtaining remission in his sentence, he in view of the policy decision itself must be held to have a right to be considered therefor. Thus, the Rules having defined 'convicts' in terms therein a 'life convict' was entitled to have his case considered within the parameters laid down therein, the same cannot be taken 5 . (2008) 13 SCC 767 6 . (2014) 3 SCC 1 7 . (2007) 13 SCC 606 KL,J W.P. Nos.20421 of 2019 & batch 22 away by reason of an executive instruction by redefining the term 'life convict'. A classification validly made would not offend Article - 14 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 229 - S B Sinha - Full Document

N. Krishnaiah vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 11 July, 2000

xvi) In N. Krishnaiah v. Govt. of A.P.16, a Division Bench of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court held that powers conferred on Governor under Article - 161 of the Constitution of India are much higher than those conferred on Government under Sections - 432 and 15 . 2011 Crl.L.J. 731 16 . 2001 Crl.L.J. 2972 KL,J W.P. Nos.20421 of 2019 & batch 29 433 of Cr.P.C. and that no such restriction on powers of Governor under Article - 161 of the Constitution of India.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 34 - Cited by 13 - R M Bapat - Full Document

Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014

"10. Secondly, the rapid proliferation of the virus amongst the inmates of congested prisons is a matter of serious concern. The High-Powered Committees constituted by the State Governments / Union territories shall consider release of prisoners by adopting the guidelines (such as inter alia, SOP laid down by NALSA) followed by them last year, at the earliest. Such of those States which have not constituted High Powered Committees last year are directed to do so immediately...."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 25720 - Full Document
1   2 Next