Madras HC orders man's release after SC freed co-convicts
A division bench of Justices MS Ramesh and V Lakshminarayanan passed the orders on Tuesday on a petition filed by Indira Gandhi who prayed for the court to release her husband D Balu alias Balasubramaniam, who has been languishing in the Cuddalore Central Prison after being convicted for the 2002 dacoity and murder at Virudhachalam, on the basis of parity with the co-convicts.
The bench said it has no difficulty in arriving at the inevitable conclusion that had he filed an appeal in the SC, his sentence too would have been reduced to 10 years.
'Even otherwise, such a benefit of reduced sentence ought to be extended to him as well by applying the principle of parity, in line with the three accused as held by the Supreme Court. Failure to do so would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and may amount to travesty of justice,' the bench said.
The bench further said, 'We cannot lose sight that there are several reasons, including poverty, which prevent a person from appealing before the higher forums of law. The lack of procedural appeal should not prevent equal treatment of similarly-placed accused.'
Pointing to Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution, it said by resorting to these constitutional provisions, it becomes the constitutional duty of the court to ensure parity.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
30 minutes ago
- Economic Times
"BJP is adding and cutting votes fraudulently," Pawan Khera continues attack on BJP over alleged 'vote theft'
Synopsis The Congress party intensifies its accusations against the BJP, alleging voter list manipulation through fraudulent additions and removals. Pawan Khera highlights the significance of the SIR process in Bihar, which exposed irregularities necessitating Supreme Court intervention. ANI "BJP is adding and cutting votes fraudulently," Pawan Khera continues attack on BJP over alleged 'vote theft' New Delhi: The Congress party continued its attack on the BJP over alleged 'vote theft' on Saturday, with senior leader Pawan Khera accusing the ruling party of tampering with the voter list by fraudulently adding and removing said that if the SIR process hadn't begun in Bihar, many irregularities in the voter list would have remained hidden. He added that the situation became so serious that even the Supreme Court had to step in, and the Election Commission was forced to accept the Congress party's demands. Speaking at the press conference, Pawan Khera said, "Yesterday we celebrated our 79th Independence Day, and tomorrow, on 17th August, we will start our Vote Adhikar Yatra in Bihar. It is possible to breathe freely in independent India because it is possible to vote. If we cannot vote, we will not be able to breathe freely in independent India. This is why Rahul Gandhi has started this struggle." He praised the people of Bihar, the Congress, and the INDIA alliance for raising their voices against the alleged conspiracy. "The way the BJP is adding and cutting votes fraudulently, they have been caught with their very hands. If SIR had not been started in Bihar, perhaps many things would not have come to light. The situation reached such a stage that even the Supreme Court had to intervene, and the Election Commission had to accept our demands... The people of Bihar, the Congress Party, and the INDIA alliance raised their voices against the conspiracy that was being hatched," he in the day, Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, shared a spoof video inspired by the film Laapataa Ladies, reiterating the Congress's "vote theft" allegations against the Election Commission and urging people to join the 'Vote Chori se Azaadi' the video on X, Rahul Gandhi wrote, "Chori chori, chupke chupke... ab or nahi, janta jag gayi hai, (Secretly, stealthily... No more now, the public has awakened)."The video shows a middle-aged man at a police station submitting a theft complaint. When asked by a policeman, "What has been stolen?" the man hesitates before replying, "Vote." The policeman reacts in shock and asks, "How's this possible?" The video ends with the message, "Theft of your vote is theft of your right." The clip is based on a scene in Laapataa Ladies where a husband goes to the police station to report that his wife has been exchanged. (ANI)
The Hindu
31 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court orders SIT probe into custodial death of Dalit law student
In the custodial death case of Somnath Suryawanshi, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Director General of Police (DGP) to set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) within one week. The court orally passed the order on August 14, 2025. A Division Bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh observed that the Inquiry Committee earlier appointed by the Maharashtra Government will be dissolved, and all documents related to the 35-year-old Dalit law student Suryawanshi's custodial death will now be handed over to the new SIT. 'If the petitioner, Vijayabai Venkata Suryawanshi, has any objections to the members of the SIT, she may register them before the court,' the Bench observed. Advocate Hitendra Gandhi representing Ms. Suryawanshi, told The Hindu, 'The High Court's direction to constitute a SIT in the custodial death case of Somnath Suryawanshi is a significant step forward, we hope the SIT will conduct a fair and thorough investigation to deliver justice that has long been denied. This order restores faith that the truth cannot be buried, and accountability will have to follow.' On July 4, 2025, the court directed the Parbhani police to register a First Information Report (FIR) within a week, noting prima facie evidence of custodial torture and violation of fundamental rights. The Bench passed the interim order in response to a petition filed by Mr. Suryawanshi's 61-year-old mother, Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi. The petitioner alleged that her son was subjected to brutal torture during his illegal detention following a protest in Parbhani on December 11, 2024, and that authorities subsequently attempted to cover up his death as a cardiac incident. Mr. Suryawanshi, a final-year law student and a member of a Scheduled Caste family from Latur, was reportedly arrested while filming a protest against the desecration of a replica of the Constitution near a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The petition alleged that despite the peaceful nature of the demonstration, he and several others were picked up during an indiscriminate police crackdown, subjected to custodial assault, and denied timely medical attention. On July 30, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by the Maharashtra government challenging a Bombay High Court order directing the police to register a FIR. Mr. Suryawanshi, a final-year law student and a member of a Scheduled Caste family from Latur, was reportedly arrested while filming a protest against the desecration of a replica of the Constitution near a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The petition alleged that despite the peaceful nature of the demonstration, he and several others were picked up during an indiscriminate police crackdown, subjected to custodial assault, and denied timely medical attention. The petition stated, 'In the videos, it could be seen that Somnath was carrying the book of the Constitution of India and recording the incident in the protest. His arrest was illegal and then he was subjected to inhuman atrocities. He as well as other persons were produced before the Magistrate on 12.12.2024. The others were also subjected to brutality and their injuries were visible, swollen, however, they were afraid to speak to the Magistrate due to the threats those were given.' It further said that the Court had granted police custody of two days. 'Further brutal assault was given to Somnath. His situation worsened when he was again produced before the Magistrate on 14.12.2024. Thereafter, his custody was transferred to Magisterial custody. Around 6.49 a.m. suddenly Somnath died on 15.12.2024, while in judicial custody,' the petition read. It was further submitted that police claimed Mr. Suryawanshi had complained of chest pain prior to his death. The petitioner also alleged that on reaching Parbhani, she was taken by Police Officer Ashok Ghorband to the Inspector General of Police, where she was informed that Somnath's brothers could be offered police jobs and was advised to perform the last rites in Latur instead of Parbhani. She further claimed she was offered ₹50 lakh to refrain from filing a complaint. She declined, demanding that her son's death be acknowledged as custodial murder and not classified as death by natural causes. The court noted that the post-mortem, conducted by a seven-member medical team, had recorded 24 visible injuries and concluded that the cause of death was 'shock following multiple injuries'. A judicial inquiry under Section 196 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) also reportedly found gross human rights violations and directly linked the death to custodial assault. 'This Court cannot remain a mute spectator when constitutional rights of a person in custody are prima facie violated,' the Bench observed, criticising the State for failing to register a cognisable offence despite substantial evidence from the post-mortem, inquest report, and the magistrate's findings. The Bench further questioned the delay by the CID in acting on the findings and expressed concern over the credibility of the internal inquiry, which bypassed the autopsy doctors and instead sought a second opinion from J.J. Hospital, Mumbai. The court directed that an FIR be registered based on the petitioner's complaint dated December 18, 2024, and that the investigation be handed over to a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The prior order restraining CID officer D.B. Talpe from submitting a final report has been vacated following this direction.
The Hindu
31 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Governors are not aliens, but checks on States' ‘hasty legislation': Centre to Supreme Court
The Union government has said the Supreme Court cannot treat Governors as 'aliens' or 'foreigners' on whom timelines can be imposed and whose discretion do not count. The submission by the Centre, made in a note authored by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, is part of the record in a Presidential Reference hearing scheduled before a Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai from August 19. The Presidential Reference stems from an April 8 judgment pronounced by a Supreme Court Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan in a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government, which had challenged Governor R.N. Ravi's delay in clearing 10 re-passed Bills and his subsequent action to reserve them for consideration by the President. The two-judge Bench had thrust a three-month deadline on State Governors and the President to deal with State Bills sent to them for approval or consideration, respectively. It had concluded that Governors enjoyed no discretion while dealing with these Bills, and were totally bound by the 'aid and advice' of the State Legislature concerned. The Division Bench had even invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to grant 'deemed assent' to 'delayed' State Bills. The April 8 judgment had further directed that the President must seek advice from the Supreme Court under Article 143 (advisory jurisdiction) in case of any vexing State Bills. The written submissions of Tamil Nadu, represented by senior advocate P. Wilson, countered that the Presidential Reference mechanism cannot be used to reopen or nullify binding judgments of the apex court itself. Questions on the powers of the President and the Governors as regards State Bills have already been settled by the April 8 judgment. Entertaining the Reference now would erode the finality attached to Supreme Court judgments under Article 141 of the Constitution. Tamil Nadu submitted the court was not bound to answer every Presidential Reference made to it But Mr. Mehta maintained the April judgment of the court had clearly trenched upon a zone exclusive to the President and the Governors. 'Governors are not to be treated as alien/foreigner in the federating units of the Union. Governors are not just emissaries of the Centre. The Governors possess democratic legitimacy through indirect democratic representation. Governors are appointed by the President on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers… Governors are constitutional actors,' Mr. Mehta submitted. The law officer argued the nature of gubernatorial assent has a unique duality of character. Though the assent is given by an apex Executive authority, the act itself is legislative in nature. The Supreme Court's approach ought to have been more calibrated. The Centre's law officer submitted that neither Article 200 (Governor's power to assent to State Bills) nor Article 201 (President's power to consider State Bills referred to her by the Governor for consideration) provided any specific time limit. 'The absence of any express time limit in Articles 200 and 201 is a deliberate and conscious constitutional choice. The judicial direction of imposition of any timeline would amount to an amendment to the Constitution,' Mr. Mehta emphasised. The note asked if the court could invoke Article 142 and assume powers under Article 200 and 201 to grant deemed assent to 'delayed' State Bills. 'The alleged failure, inaction, or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it. Article 142 does not empower the court to create a concept of 'deemed assent', turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head,' Mr. Mehta put forth. The Centre said a Governor was not a mere post office, but a check on 'hasty legislation' by the States. A Governor was not precluded from exercising discretion under Article 200 to grant assent, withhold assent, reserve a Bill for the President's consideration or return the same to the Legislative Assembly, even in the absence of aid and advice to that effect. 'The Governor's assent cannot be a mechanical process… Situations may arise where the Governor may need to take a view independently of the Council of Ministers,' Mr. Mehta argued. Moreover, the Union government said directing the President to consult the Supreme Court under Article 143 in case of any doubts about State Bills would effectively turn a constitutional prerogative into a judicial mandate. 'An absolute discretion lies with the President to seek advice. The term 'consult' means the President is not bound to do so,' Mr. Mehta submitted.
