sentencing

As the oral submissions in the Union of India vs V Sriharan @ Murugan matter concluded on Wednesday (August 12) in the Supreme Court, it became obvious that the Rajasthan government chose to adopt the submissions of other State Governments who have, by and large, opposed the Union of India’s plea for restricting the state governments’ power under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC ) to remit life sentences.

On yesterday’s penultimate day of hearing of Union of India vs V Sriharan @ Murugan, the battle lines were clearly drawn between the Central Government and the State Governments, most of whom are listed as respondents in this case.

In Maru Ram vs Union of India in 1980, the Supreme Court’s five-Judge Constitution Bench heard the first challenge to section 433A Cr.P.C. and upheld its constitutionality.

Now, the issue has turned full circle.

The hearing of this case continued yesterday with Rakesh Dwivedi, counsel for both Tamil Nadu and West Bengal in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, arguing the whole day that state governments should have the power to suspend or remit sentences or exercise mercy by using their own discretion.