Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.31 seconds)
Gani Srinivasulu, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 October, 2018 cites

Ashok Kumar Barik vs State Of Orissa on 5 November, 1997

11. Though the power to review the cases forwarded by the internal Scrutiny Committee vests with the Standing Committee constituted under Clause 12 of the GO, but right accrued to the eligible convicts to be considered for premature release cannot be nibbled without objectively examining their case. The policy framed by the Government is in tune with the International conventions on life and liberty of the citizens including prisoners, to which India is a signatory. At the same time, this Court is not compassionate and considerate of the lift convicts who are enduring nightmare for the gruesome offences committed by them, but it is only on the principle of fair play, legitimate expectation and the guidelines framed by the Government, their cases have to be examined having regard to the conditions stipulated therein. No compelling reasons are discernable for not recommending their cases even on a perusal of the record produced in the matter. Review 13 power vested in the Standing Committee cannot be construed to lay down fresh conditions/guidelines, and it is to scrutinise and ensure conformation of the eligibility conditions already laid down by the Government in the GO Ms.No.8.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 54 - Full Document

Union Of India vs V. Sriharan @ ,Murugan & Ors on 2 December, 2015

9. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that Court should not interfere in matters either grant/refusal of special remission to the convicts and the terms of remission or otherwise be left to the Executive. A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA vs. V. SRIHARAN1 while considering the rights of convicts for grant of remission at para 259 observed thus:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 197 - Cited by 342 - H L Dattu - Full Document
1   2 Next