2014 (9) TMI 1257 - SC - Indian Laws

Review petition filed by a convict whose death penalty is affirmed by this Court is required to be heard in open Court but cannot be decided by circulation - Extinguishment of life - Whether Article 21 is the sole repository of the constitutional guarantee against the deprivation of life? - whether it is sufficient for the State to merely prescribe a procedure for the deprivation of life by a law or whether such a law is required to comply with certain other constitutional requirements? - As per Jasti Chelameswar J HELD THAT - Article 137 does not confer any right to seek review of any judgment of this Court in any person. On the other hand it only recognizes the authority of this Court to review its own judgments. It is a settled position of law that the Courts of limited jurisdiction don t have any inherent power of review. Though this Court is the apex constitutional court with plenary jurisdiction the makers of the Constitution thought it fit to expressly confer such a power on this Court as they were aware that if an error creeps into the judgment of this Court there is no way of correcting it. Therefore perhaps they did not want to leave scope for any doubt regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to review its judgments in appropriate cases. Prior to the amendment of Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules in 1978 which was the subject matter of challenge in the case of PN. ESWARA IYER VERSUS THE REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 1980 (2) TMI 258 - SUPREME COURT this Court granted oral hearings even at the stage of review. It was by the amendment that the oral hearings were eliminated at the review stage. As explained by Eswara Iyer s case such an amendment was necessitated as a result of unwarranted review baby boom. This Court in exercise of its authority Under Article 145 as a part of the Court management strategy thought it fit to eliminate the oral hearings at the review stage while preserving the discretion in the Bench considering a review application to grant an oral hearing in an appropriate case. There are no reason to take a different view -whether the developments subsequent to Eswara Iyer s case either in law or practice of this Court demand a reconsideration of the rule should be left to the Court s jurisdiction Under Article 145. As per Rohinton Fali Nariman J HELD THAT - Deflecting a little from the death penalty cases we deem it necessary to make certain general comments on sentencing as they are relevant to the context. Crime and punishment are two sides of the same coin. Punishment must fit the crime. The notion of Just deserts or a sentence proportionate to the offender s culpability was the principle which by passage of time became applicable to criminal jurisprudence. It is not out of place to mention that in all of recorded history there has never been a time when crime and punishment have not been the subject of debate and difference of opinion. There are no statutory guidelines to regulate punishment. Therefore in practice there is much variance in the matter of sentencing. In many countries there are laws prescribing sentencing guidelines but there is no statutory sentencing policy in India. The Indian Penal Code prescribes only the maximum punishments for offences and in some cases minimum punishment is also prescribed. Though it is not necessary to dwell upon this aspect elaborately at the same time it needs to be emphasised that when on the same set of facts one judicial mind can come to the conclusion that the circumstances do not warrant the death penalty whereas another may feel it to be a fit case fully justifying the death penalty we feel that when a convict who has suffered the sentence of death and files a review petition the necessity of oral hearing in such a review petition becomes an integral part of reasonable procedure . The validity of no oral hearing rule in review petitions generally has been upheld in PN. ESWARA IYER VERSUS THE REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 1980 (2) TMI 258 - SUPREME COURT which is a binding precedent. Review petitions arising out of death sentence cases is carved out as a separate category as oral hearing in such review petitions is found to be mandated by Article 21 - when it is a question of life and death of a person even a remote chance of deviating from such a decision while exercising the review jurisdiction would justify oral hearing in a review petition. It is not necessary to refer to the various sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code argued before us. Equally Article 20(1) has no manner of application as the writ Petitioner is not being subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence. This petition is therefore dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a review petition filed by a convict whose death penalty is affirmed by the Supreme Court should be heard in open Court or decided by circulation.
2. The constitutionality of Order XL Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which mandates that review petitions be disposed of by circulation without oral arguments.
3. Whether death sentence cases should be heard by a Bench of at least three or five Supreme Court Judges.
4. The need for oral hearing in review petitions in death sentence cases as a part of "reasonable procedure" under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Hearing of Review Petitions in Open Court:
The primary issue was whether a review petition filed by a convict whose death penalty is affirmed by the Supreme Court should be heard in open Court or decided by circulation. The judgment acknowledges that the death penalty results in the deprivation of the most fundamental liberty guaranteed by the Constitution, resulting in an irreversible situation. The Court emphasized that such deprivation should be in accordance with the law, both substantive and procedural, which is consistent with the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21.

2. Constitutionality of Order XL Rule 3:
Order XL Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which mandates that review petitions be disposed of by circulation without oral arguments, was challenged. The constitutionality of this rule was upheld by a Constitution Bench in P.N. Eswara Iyer and Ors. v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (1980) 4 SCC 680. The Court held that the rule of audi alteram partem does not necessarily require oral submissions in every case and that written presentations can suffice depending on the justice of the situation.

3. Bench Composition for Death Sentence Cases:
The Court addressed whether death sentence cases should be heard by a Bench of at least three or five Supreme Court Judges. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order VI Rule 3, mandates that every cause, appeal, or other proceedings arising out of a case in which the death sentence has been confirmed or awarded by the High Court shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than three Judges. The Court was not persuaded to have a minimum of five learned Judges hear all death sentence cases but agreed that at least three judicially trained minds need to apply their minds at the final stage of the journey of a convict on death row.

4. Oral Hearing in Review Petitions in Death Sentence Cases:
The Court held that "reasonable procedure" under Article 21 would encompass oral hearing of review petitions arising out of death penalties. The judgment emphasized the irreversibility of the death penalty and the potential for different judicially trained minds to arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions on the same facts. The Court concluded that a limited oral hearing even at the review stage is mandated by Article 21 in all death sentence cases. This decision was based on the fundamental right to life and the need for a just, fair, and reasonable procedure.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that review petitions in death sentence cases should be heard in open court with oral arguments, recognizing the fundamental right to life under Article 21. The Court also upheld the constitutionality of Order XL Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, but carved out an exception for death sentence cases, mandating oral hearings in such review petitions. The judgment also clarified that death sentence cases should be heard by a Bench of at least three Judges, as per the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.