India

The release of Rajiv’s killers is worrying: SN Dhingra

New Delhi. There has been a debate over the Supreme Court’s order for the premature release of six convicts serving life imprisonment in the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, whether such crimes and high-profile cases should be lenient. . Former Delhi High Court judge S.N. Dhingra’s opinion.

Question: The court has ordered the premature release of the convicts of the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi assassination, what is your view on this?

Answer: The order for the premature release of the killers of Rajiv Gandhi is certainly worrying. In my opinion, in recent years the judgments of the higher judiciary, especially the apex court, have been based not on the gravity of the crime but on the judges’ thinking and attitude. Supreme Court judges these days give their decisions on the basis of individual stand, which becomes a precedent for the future. The judgments of different benches in the same case are beginning to differ on account of different viewpoints, hence the law-based precedent is not being established. The decisions of the higher judiciary become a precedent for the future, so it is imperative that these decisions be based on established law, rather than on the point of view and thinking of a judge.

Question: In this case, the top court has mentioned the powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution and passed the order in exercise of its privilege. What are its implications in your view?

Answer: In the case the Supreme Court has exercised the special discretionary powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution, but the question arises as to why the discretionary powers should be exercised in cases where laws already exist. In my opinion such powers should be exercised in cases where the law is not clear or justice is being affected by the existing law. Two convicts in the assassination of the former prime minister, whose sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by a five-judge bench of the apex court, raises the question as to whether there is uniformity between the decisions of constitution benches of the same court. Why isn’t it?

Question: What will be the impact of premature release on future trials in case like assassination of former prime minister? Will the verdict not pave the way for the release of criminals involved in terrorist activities or heinous crimes?

Answer: Surely such judgments will become precedents in future and criminals will come out taking advantage of the lack of uniformity in law and judgments. This will not only increase the problems before the court, but will also boost the morale of the criminals.

Question: Rarely, even in the rarest of rare cases, there have been instances of lack of uniformity in decisions, what do you think should be done to overcome this?

Answer: I am of the considered view that to plug such loopholes, judges should be included in different benches based on their legal education and professional background, so that there should be a specific bench depending on the nature of the cases, from which their decisions can be taken. be uniform. What is happening right now is that benches are not formed on the basis of specialties of judges.

Question: You have insisted on the constitution of specific benches, so do you think there is a need to redefine the authority of the Chief Justice to constitute benches?

Answer: The CJI may have the right to constitute benches, but the formation of mixed benches is not justified, ignoring the nature of the cases. It has been that even if there are cases of a similar nature, they do not necessarily have to be before a bench of judges with a specific background. There is an urgent need to consider this. (Language)

Back to top button
error: Content is protected !!