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 ...

  25 handpicked key judgments delivered by the Kerala High Court in 2021: 1. Marital Rape A Valid Ground For Divorce [X v. Y] A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Kauser Edappagath in a significant judgment upheld that marital rape, although not penalised in India, is a good ground to claim divorce although the law does not recognise marital rape under penal provisions. The Court while empathising with the situation of the woman observed that a husband's licentious disposition disregarding the autonomy of the wife is marital rape, albeit such conduct cannot be penalised, it falls in the frame of physical and mental cruelty. 2. Muslim Women Entitled To Invoke Extra-Judicial Divorce [X v. Y and other connected matters] Overruling a 49-year-old judgment that barred Muslim women from resorting to extrajudicial modes of dissolving marriage, a Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Jus...

 In the year 2021, there were many instances where Madras High Court placed constitutional freedoms and citizens' rights on a higher threshold. They are: 1. 'Right To Be Funny Can Be Mined In Article 19(1)(a)' : Madras High Court Quashes FIR Over Humorous Facebook Post [Mathivanan v. Inspector of Police & Ors.] While quashing an FIR registered against an office-bearer of CPI (ML) who uploaded vacation pictures with the caption 'Trip to Sirumalai for shooting practice', the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court went on to make some interesting observations about the 'duty to laugh' and the 'right to be funny'. Justice G.R Swaminathan quashed the FIR against the 62-year-old accused while underscoring that the case registered by Vadipatty Police, booking the latter for 'making preparations to wage war against the State', is 'absurd and an abuse of legal process'. The Court went on to observe that the correlative right to be funny can be...