LEX ASPIRANTS

The purpose of the capital punishment is to develop fear in the mind of people and it operates as ominous warning to the public. The so called punishment is given to those offenders who are incurable, and thereby prevents repetition of crime as it is in the interest of the society. The legislative history with regard to criminal punishment shows that there has been significant change in thinking and approach. Prior to 1955 , normal rule was to impose sentence of death on a person convicted for murder and if lesser sentence was to be imposed, the court was required to record the reason.   In 1955 , court is free to award either death or life imprisonment and life imprisonment was the rule and death sentence is the exception .   In 1973 – judgment shall state the reasons for giving life imprisonment and special reasons for death penalty. In 1980 the landmark decision – bacchan Singh v. state of Punjab. – Court held that death penalty is constitutionally valid and not ...

The Supreme Court on Wednesday to keep court proceedings under section 124A of IPC in abeyance has the effect of temporarily erasing the colonial provision from the statute book while the union reexamines it. It was argued in court that nearly 13000 people were already in jail under the sedition provision. National crime records bureau (NCRB) report says 356 cases of sedition under section 124A of IPC had been registered and 548 people arrested between 2015 &2020 with just 6 convictions. Section 124 A of IPC, which criminalizes any speech, writing, or representation that excites disaffection against the government. The Indian experiences shows that whenever the court dilutes the harshness of penal provisions in a balancing approach, instead of striking down the entire provision, the instrumentalities of the state (police, prosecution, and court) continue to overuse or misuse the provision. The judgment of the top court in Kedar Nath Singh  V. State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC...

  The Supreme Court has reiterated the time limit for filing of the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory (if it is not a commercial suit) in recent case Bharat Kalra vs Raj Kishan Chabra. In this case, a suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiff. The High Court upheld the Trial court order refusing to condone the delay of 193 days in filing of the written statement on the ground that there was "no plausible explanation and coherent reason" explaining the delay in filing the written statement. In appeal filed by the defendant, the Apex Court noted that the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff is not the one which is governed by the Commercial Court Act, 2015. "Therefore, the time limit for filing of the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory in view of the judgment of this Court reported as ' Kailash V. Nankhu & Ors.' reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480. In view of the aforesai...