SC criticises Allahabad HC for ignoring settled law on sentence suspension
The observations from the top court came days after it pulled up an Allahabad High Court judge for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case.
In an unprecedented order, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on August 4 stripped criminal matters of the roster of a Allahabad High Court judge "till he demits office" after he "erroneously" upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute.
The same bench came hard on the high court decision in another case.
"The impugned Order is one more from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad with which we are disappointed," it said, adding that this plea arose from an order passed by the High Court on May 29, in a criminal appeal by which the high court declined to suspend the substantive order of sentence passed by the trial court.
"We are once again constrained to observe that such errors creep in at the level of the High Court and only because the wellsettled principles of law on the subject are not applied correctly.
"It is very important to first look into the subject-matter. Thereafter the court should look into the issue involved. In the last the court should look into the plea of the litigant and then proceed to apply the correct principles of law," Justice Pardiwala said in an order on August 6.
The apex court observed that the High Court's order was legally flawed and demonstrated a disregard for established jurisprudence.
It was hearing an appeal filed by a convict who had been sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment under various provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Indian Penal Code , and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The convict had approached the high court with an application under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking suspension of his sentence.
However, the high court rejected the plea solely on the ground that the offence was "heinous", without evaluating the request in light of the settled law.
Setting aside the high court's order, bench cited a landmark judgment which mandates that appellate courts should adopt a liberal approach in suspending fixed-term sentences unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Emphasizing the need for judicial clarity, the bench said, "It is very important to first look into the subject matter. Thereafter, the court should examine the issues involved, and only then consider the plea of the litigant before applying the correct principles of law."
The apex court took particular issue with the high court's failure to analyze the application on legal grounds.
"What the high court did was to reiterate the prosecution's case and the oral evidence, without engaging with the legal test for suspension of sentence in a fixed-term conviction," the bench observed.
It has now remanded the matter back to the high court for fresh consideration, directing it to pass an appropriate order within 15 days.
"The High Court shall keep in mind that the sentence is for a fixed term, that is four years and it is only if there are compelling circumstances indicating that release would not be in public interest, that suspension may be denied," the order clarified.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
44 minutes ago
- Hans India
Centre's take on age of consent issue is bang on
The BJP-led NDA government at the Centre has done exceedingly well while reiterating its objections to reducing the age of consent from 18 years to 16 years to help 'protect children from exploitation and abuse' in a more authoritative manner. Its contention is quite right in that any further lowering of the existing age would open the floodgates to trafficking and other sordid forms of child abuse apart from diluting the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law. A grim reality and the country's bane are that many victims don't open or approach higherups because the perpetrators happen to be people known to them, including from within the family, neighbourhood or school. They bear the trauma and anguish in silence because of fear that they would be subject to more harrowing times up ahead. However, there are contrasting opinions as regards consensual sex between adolescents aged 16 to 18 years. The Centre relies on the fact that deep-rooted Indian laws offer an unambiguous intent to provide a 'robust, non-negotiable shield' to minors against any form of sexual exploitation. This issue has shot to prominence following the contentions of eminent lawyer and amicus curiae Indira Jaising, who argued that consensual sexual activity between adolescents aged 16 to 18 should not be classified as 'abuse' or criminalised under the POCSO Act. Incidentally, the Law Commission of India has cautioned against lowering the age of consent. Instead, it suggested a guided judicial discretion in cases involving tacit approval of children in the 16-18 age group. Handling a case related to a similar issue, the Supreme Court had ruled that consensual sexual activity between minors, where there is no coercion or deception, does not automatically constitute rape under Indian law. The question is how and who will decide on aspects like 'consensual' and 'coercion'. One can never know the truth as it will remain unknown to any third person given the dicey nature of the experience. According to a 2007 central survey data, 53.22 per cent of children reported facing one or more forms of sexual abuse. It will be in the fitness of things if one goes beyond the age of consent issue. A rethink on the major and minor status can have serious ramifications in other fields and bring back the gory days of long held social taboos like child marriages. If a rise in trafficking is a possibility so also are the chances of more road accidents if vehicles are driven by 16-old-old kids. In the United Kingdom and many European nations, the age of consent for any form of sexual activity is 16 years regardless of the gender. Maybe this uniformity (unlike the 21 years for boys and 18 for girls in India) needs to be deeply investigated. The Centre has assured to come up with a comprehensive defence mechanism whereby the norms are strictly complied with. If one goes by what has been happening one wonders if any such 'categorical' legal measures would have any meaningful relevance. Despite 'stringent' existing laws, we continue to hear of child marriages in Rajasthan and Gujarat, there is no check on minors plying vehicles and there is no end to the problem of child-labour. The last remains rampant because the 'employers' are quite liberal in keeping the authorities in good humour. More than reworking on laws, it would be better if the authorities swear by the existing laws and punish accordingly.
The Hindu
44 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court stays M.P. High Court order in Saif Ali Khan family property dispute
The Supreme Court on Friday granted an interim stay on a Madhya Pradesh High Court order remanding a decades-old property dispute involving the royal estate of Bhopal's last Nawab, Hamidullah Khan, to the trial court for fresh adjudication. Also Read | M.P. High Court reverses lower court order that granted ownership of ancestral properties to Saif Ali Khan, family A Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul Chandurkar issued notice on a plea of Omar Faruq Ali and Raashid Ali, descendants of the elder brother of Nawab Hamidullah Khan, against the High Court's order of June 30. The petitioners have challenged the High Court's decision to set aside a February 14, 2000, trial court judgment that upheld the exclusive rights of Nawab's daughter Sajida Sultan, her son Mansoor Ali Khan (former India cricket captain), and their legal heirs, actor Saif Ali Khan, Soha Ali Khan, Saba Sultan, and veteran actress Sharmila Tagore, over the estate. The High Court said the trial court's ruling was based on a 1997 Allahabad High Court verdict, which was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2019. However, instead of applying the 2019 precedent and deciding the case conclusively, the High Court remanded the matter for re-evaluation. Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat, appearing for the petitioners, said the High Court remand order was contrary to the procedural norms outlined under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The case has its origins in civil suits filed in 1999 by members of the Nawab's extended family, including the late Begum Suraiya Rashid and her children, Mahabano (also deceased), Niloufar, Nadir, and Yawar, as well as Nawabzadi Qamar Taj Rabia Sultan, another daughter of the Nawab. The plaintiffs sought partition, possession, and equitable settlement of the Nawab's private estate. The trial court ruled in favour of Sajida Sultan, stating the estate was not subject to Muslim Personal Law and had devolved upon her under constitutional provisions. Following the Nawab's death in 1960, the Government of India issued a 1962 certificate recognising Sajida Sultan as both the ruler and rightful heir to the personal estate under Article 366(22) of the Constitution. The plaintiffs, however, contended the Nawab's personal estate should be distributed among all legal heirs under Muslim Personal Law. They also pointed out the 1962 certificate was not formally contested but claimed it should not bar equitable partition. The respondents, including actor Saif Ali Khan and his family, argued succession followed the rule of primogeniture and Sajida Sultan had rightfully inherited both the royal title (Gaddi) and personal properties. While overturning the trial court ruling, the High Court remanded the case. The petitioners moved the top court seeking reversal of the remand order.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Aurangabad bench of HC refers caste certificate recall powers to larger bench
MUMBAI: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday asked a larger bench to decide whether caste scrutiny committees in Maharashtra can cancel their own orders if a caste validity certificate is found to have been obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts. Aurangabad bench of HC refers caste certificate recall powers to larger bench The reference was made by justices Manish Pitale and YG Khobragade while hearing petitions by four residents of Jamb village in Nanded district — Santosh Anil Kolhe, Sham Anil Kolhe, Sharad Arunrao Kolhe and Balaji Arunrao Kolhe. They had challenged a May 15, 2025 order of the Kinwat-based Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar headquarters) cancelling their caste validity certificates for alleged fraud and concealment of information. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Pratap V. Jadhavar argued that the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 gives scrutiny committees no legal power to review or recall their own decisions. He cited earlier high court rulings — Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje and Bharat Nagu Garud — which held that once a validity certificate is issued, the committee becomes functus officio (a legal term meaning its job in that matter is finished) and only the High Court can overturn it under Article 226 of the Constitution. Countering this, additional government pleaders SP Sonpawale and Saie S Joshi said that certificates obtained by fraud cannot be allowed to stand, even if the 2000 Act is silent on recall powers. They relied on the Rajeshwar Baburao Bone case, in which the High Court and Supreme Court upheld cancellation of a fraudulently obtained caste certificate, stressing that fraud vitiates all legal acts. The bench noted that different benches of the High Court have taken conflicting views on the issue. While unchecked recall powers could unsettle vested rights, the judges said, the inability to correct fraudulent outcomes would undermine the caste verification process. They observed that scrutiny committees, being quasi-judicial bodies with some powers of a civil court, are often better placed than writ courts to assess factual fraud in caste claims. 'It cannot be countenanced,' the court remarked, 'that validity certificates obtained on falsehoods, fabrications or suppression of material facts cannot be reopened when such fraud is noticed subsequently.' Citing the need for an authoritative ruling, the bench framed five questions for the larger bench, including: Whether scrutiny committees under the 2000 Act have the power to recall orders obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. If so, what limits and safeguards should apply to prevent misuse. Whether such safeguards could include requiring prior leave of the High Court. And whether earlier rulings in Umbarje and Garud should be revisited on this point. The matter will now go to the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to assign it to a larger bench.
