Anil Agarwala-vs- State of West Bengal reported in 2011(2) SCALE 429.
A lawyer's online diary of case laws of Supreme Court of India and High Courts in India
Claim of juvenility
Claim of juvenility, whether can be made at belated stage, was the question which fell for consideration before Apex Court recently. Their Lordships held that, in view of the statutory provisions of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended in 2009, the accused has right to raise the question of juvenility at any point of time, and if such an issue is raised, the Court is under an obligation to make an inquiry and deal with the question. The said Section has to be read along with Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, as amended in 2007.
Convicts on death row not to be kept in solitary confinement: HC
Headings:
Law News
CHANDIGARH: From now convicts facing death penalty and confined in various jails of Punjab, Haryana and UT, Chandigarh, will not be kept in solitary confinement. A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday made it clear that jail inmates on death row should not be kept in solitary confinement and should be kept with normal prisoners.
The directions were passed by the HC after allowing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate-cum-human rights activist, Navkiran Singh.
The petitioner had sought directions to convert into life imprisonment, death sentence awarded to 11 convicts currently lodged in various jails of Haryana. Directions were also sought against keeping them in solitary confinement.
Referring to the case of a prisoner Dharam Pal lodged in Ambala jail after a Sonepat court awarded him death sentence on May 5,1997, the petitioner contended that his mercy petition had been pending before the President since April 1999. Seeking directions against executing the death sentence, he also sought directions of transferring the prisoners to ordinary cells, instead of solitary confinement in view of the apex court observations in a case.
While contending before the court, advocate Navkiran had also submitted that in 1978, the Supreme Court had ruled in the case of Sunil Batra versus Delhi administration that an accused facing death penalty has all the legal remedies till his/her mercy petition was decided by the President Of India and he cannot be kept in solitary confinement. However till 2010, in Panjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, such convicts were kept in solitary confinement, violating the SC`s ruling, he said.
The directions were passed by the HC after allowing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate-cum-human rights activist, Navkiran Singh.
The petitioner had sought directions to convert into life imprisonment, death sentence awarded to 11 convicts currently lodged in various jails of Haryana. Directions were also sought against keeping them in solitary confinement.
Referring to the case of a prisoner Dharam Pal lodged in Ambala jail after a Sonepat court awarded him death sentence on May 5,1997, the petitioner contended that his mercy petition had been pending before the President since April 1999. Seeking directions against executing the death sentence, he also sought directions of transferring the prisoners to ordinary cells, instead of solitary confinement in view of the apex court observations in a case.
While contending before the court, advocate Navkiran had also submitted that in 1978, the Supreme Court had ruled in the case of Sunil Batra versus Delhi administration that an accused facing death penalty has all the legal remedies till his/her mercy petition was decided by the President Of India and he cannot be kept in solitary confinement. However till 2010, in Panjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, such convicts were kept in solitary confinement, violating the SC`s ruling, he said.
Source : The Times of India
Panel for change in divorce law
NEW DELHI: A parliamentary committee has supported amending marriage laws to include "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" as a ground for divorce but has asked for safeguards to ensure that women get a share in matrimonial property and a clear stand on children adopted by a couple.
The parliamentary panel opposed doing away with the prevailing waiting period of six months before moving a joint motion for annulling marriage.
The house committee on law and justice presented its report in Parliament.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Panel-for
The parliamentary panel opposed doing away with the prevailing waiting period of six months before moving a joint motion for annulling marriage.
The house committee on law and justice presented its report in Parliament.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Panel-for
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)