Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1982 (8) TMI SC This
Issues Involved:
1. Distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' 2. Applicability of Article 19 to laws providing punishment for crimes 3. Test for determining violation of fundamental rights 4. Constitutionality of death penalty under Section 302 IPC and Section 354(3) CrPC 5. Burden of proof in cases challenging constitutionality under Articles 14, 19, and 21 6. Deterrent effect of death penalty 7. Arbitrary and capricious nature of death penalty 8. Class bias in the imposition of death penalty 9. Judicial discretion in sentencing Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order': - The distinction lies not merely in the nature or quality of the act but in the degree and extent. Violent crimes committed in different contexts might cause different reactions. For instance, a murder in certain circumstances may only affect 'law and order', while in others, it may disrupt 'public order'. The judgment emphasizes that Article 19 is attracted only to laws capable of being tested under its clauses. 2. Applicability of Article 19 to laws providing punishment for crimes: - It was reiterated that Article 19 does not apply to laws of preventive detention or laws providing punishment for crimes. The Constitution confers rights under Article 19 but also adopts preventive detention to prevent greater evils. The validity of imprisonment should not be tested with reference to Article 19. 3. Test for determining violation of fundamental rights: - The judgment adopts the two-fold test from R.C. Cooper's case: 1. The effect of the law and action upon the right attracts the court's jurisdiction. 2. The direct operation of the act upon the rights forms the real test. - This test was further explained in Maneka Gandhi's case as the "doctrine of intended and real effect" and the "test of proximate effect and operation of the statute." 4. Constitutionality of death penalty under Section 302 IPC and Section 354(3) CrPC: - The judgment discusses the legislative history and changes in the policy regarding death penalty, highlighting that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty an exception under Section 354(3). The judgment concludes that the death penalty serves as a deterrent and is not arbitrary, thus not violating Articles 14, 19, and 21. 5. Burden of proof in cases challenging constitutionality under Articles 14, 19, and 21: - The judgment emphasizes that there is a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of an enactment, and the burden is on the challenger to show clear transgression of constitutional principles. However, in cases involving deprivation of life or personal liberty, the State must show that the procedure is reasonable, fair, and just. 6. Deterrent effect of death penalty: - The judgment discusses various studies and opinions on the deterrent effect of the death penalty. It concludes that death penalty serves as a deterrent, citing opinions of notable judges and scholars, and the Law Commission's report supporting its deterrent effect. 7. Arbitrary and capricious nature of death penalty: - The judgment acknowledges the possibility of arbitrariness in the imposition of death penalty but emphasizes the safeguards provided in the CrPC, such as confirmation by the High Court and the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. The judgment rejects the argument that the discretion in awarding death penalty is unguided and arbitrary. 8. Class bias in the imposition of death penalty: - The judgment does not explicitly address the issue of class bias in the imposition of death penalty. However, it implies that the judicial process and safeguards are designed to minimize any arbitrary or biased application of the death penalty. 9. Judicial discretion in sentencing: - The judgment supports the discretion given to judges in sentencing, emphasizing that it must be exercised judicially, considering all relevant circumstances. The judgment rejects the argument that the absence of exhaustive standards makes the discretion arbitrary, stating that broad guidelines are sufficient. In conclusion, the judgment upholds the constitutionality of the death penalty under Section 302 IPC and Section 354(3) CrPC, emphasizing its deterrent effect, the judicial safeguards in place, and the necessity of judicial discretion in sentencing.
|