web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades Of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades Of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

T.V.Vatheeswaran Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 February, 1983

Posted on December 6, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This post has already been read 43 times!

In this judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, delay in executing a death sentence is violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India.

Case background:

A prisoner condemned to death over eight years ago claims that it is not lawful to hang him now. Let us put the worst against him first. He was the principal accused in the case and, so to say, the archvillian of a villainous piece. He was the brain behind a cruel conspiracy to impersonate Customs officers’ pretend to question unsuspecting visitors to the city of Madras, abduct them on the pretext of interrogating them, administer sleeping pills to the unsuspecting victims steal their cash and jewels and finally murder them. The plan was ingeniously fiendish and the appellant was the architect. There is no question that the learned Sessions Judge very rightly sentenced him to death But that was in January 1975. Since then he has been kept in solitary confinement, quite contrary to our ruling in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration(1). Before that he was a ’prisoner under remand’ for two years. So, the prisoner claims that to take away his life after keeping him in jail for ten years, eight of which in illegal solitary confinement, is a gross violation o the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Art. 21 af the Constitution.

Hon’ble Court rules:

So, what do we have now? Arts. 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive. They sustain, strengthen and nourish each other. They are available to prisoners as well as free men. Prison walls do not keep out Fundamental Rights. A person under sentence of death may also claim Fundamental Rights. The fiat of Art. 21, as explained, is that any procedure which deprives a person of his life or liberty must be just, fair and reasonable. Just, fair and reasonable procedure implies a right to free legal services where he cannot avail them. It implies a right to a speedy trial. It implies humane conditions of detection, preventive or punitive. ’Procedure established by law’ does not end with the pronouncement of sentence; it includes tho carrying out of sentence. That is as far as we have gone so far. It seems to us but a short step, but a step in the right direction, to hold that prolonged detention to await the execution of a sentence of death is an unjust, unfair and unreasonable procedure and the only way to undo the wrong is to quash the sentence of death.

Final Words:

What may be considered prolonged delay so as to attract the constitutional protection of Art. 21 against the execution of a sentence of death is a ticklish question. In Ediga Annamma’s case, two years was considered sufficient to justify interference with the sentence of death. In Bhagwan Baux’s case, two and a half years and in Sadhu Singh’s case, three and a half years were taken as sufficient to justify altering the sentence of death into one of imprisonment for life. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a sentence of death imposed by a court of Session must be confirmed by the High Court. The practice, to our knowledge, has always been to give top priority to the hearing of such cases by the High Courts. So, also in this Court. There are provisions in the Constitution (Arts. 72 and 161) which invest the President and the Governor with power to suspend, remit or commute a sentence of death. Making all reasonable allowance for the time necessary for appeal and considered of reprieve, we think that delay exceeding two years in the execution of a sentence of death should be considered sufficient to entitle the person under sentence of death to invoke Art. 21 and demand the quashing of the sentence of death. We therefore accept the special leave petition, allow the appeal as also the Writ Petition and quash the sentence of death. In the place of the sentence of death, we substitute the sentence of imprisonment for life.

T.V. Vatheeswaran Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 February, 1983

Citation: AIR 1983 SC 361, 1983 AIR 361, 1983 SCR (2) 348, 1983 SCC (2) 68, 1983 SCALE (1)115

Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1536503/


[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Posts with similar tags as that of above post

Journey through the years – Public Interest ...
views 4
Shantistar Builders Vs Narayan Khimalal Gotame �...
views 0
M.P. Sharma And Ors. Vs Satish Chandra, District M...
views 1
Babu Singh And Ors Vs The State Of U.P on 31 Janua...
views 0
Legal Goals to Achieve under Judicial Activism (Vi...
views 7
Tweet
Posted in Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) | Tagged Article 21 of The Constitution Of India Catena Of Judgments Delay In Execution of Death Sentence Right to Life T.V.Vatheeswaran Vs State Of Tamil Nadu Wide Interpretation of Article 21 | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

14 − 14 =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Follow me here

Tweets by @ShadesOfKnife

Most Viewed Posts

  • Supreme Court and High Court Judgments to cite in Discharge (u/s 239) or Quash petition (u/s 482)
    April 6, 2018
  • Santhini Vs Vijaya Venkatesh on 9 October, 2017
    July 13, 2018
  • No Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
    May 26, 2018
  • Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003
    June 8, 2018
  • CrPC 125 Must Go From Statute Book. And Why?
    November 30, 2018

Recent Posts

  • 3 Years LLB General – General Contracts – 20 Marks Answers
  • Chithrangathan Vs Seema on 4 September, 2007
  • Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs Director CBI and Anr on 6 May, 1997

Tags Cloud

Incomplete ArticleLandmark CaseLegal Procedure ExplainedSandeep PamaratiArticle 21 of The Constitution Of IndiaAbsurd Or After Thought Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague AllegationsCatena Of JudgmentsPWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance GrantedIPC 498a Not Made OutCrPC Sec 482 - QuashProtection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005CrPC Sec 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High CourtPerjury - Approached Court with Unclean HandsPerjuryPWDV Act Sec 18 - Protection Order GrantedCrPC Sec 125 Must Go From Statute Book PILSummary PostIPC 498A QuashedNo Territorial JurisdictionCrPC Sec 125 - Maintenance to Wife

Categories Cloud

Supreme Court JudgmentBare ActsHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or NotificationGeneral Study MaterialHigh Court of Delhi Judgment or NotificationHigh Court of Bombay Judgment or NotificationPrakasam DV CasesHigh Court of Karnataka Judgment or NotificationHigh Court of Madras Judgment or NotificationJudicial Activism (for Public Benefit)Assorted Court JudgmentsHigh Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or NotificationDistrict or Sessions Court JudgmentHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or NotificationHigh Court of Gujarat Judgment or NotificationHigh Court of Allahabad Judgment or NotificationChittor DV CasesHigh Court of Patna Judgment or NotificationHigh Court of Kerala Judgment or NotificationLegal Procedure

Picture Tag Cloud

MotivationalFunnyAwakeningShadesOfKnifeNews

SOK Archives

  • February 2019 (7)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (98)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (33)
  • September 2018 (74)
  • August 2018 (48)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (102)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism
  • Insaaf India
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki
  • MyNation.net
  • Save Indian Family
  • The Male Factor
  • Vaastav Foundation
  • Voice4india

Amazon Associates Banner

Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC
error: Do not copy without permission. Content is protected !!