Ex-CJI UU Lalit Discusses Important Criminal Law Judgments Of Last One Decade In LiveLaw's 10th Anniversary Lecture Series

As part of celebrating the milestone 'LiveLaw @ 10: A Decade of Revolutionary Reporting', LiveLaw commenced the 10th Anniversary Lecture Series on July 3 with an inaugural lecture delivered by former Chief Justice of India Justice U.U Lalit.

Justice Lalit delivered an enlightening discourse on "The Evolution of Criminal Law in the Last Decade" pinpointing significant judicial decisions to navigate better through the intricacies of criminal law. In his lecture, Justice Lalit specifically discussed a 7-judge bench decision, 7 constitutional bench decisions, and various 3-judge bench decisions that were rendered in the past decade, aiming to identify a common underlying principle in the recent approach of the Supreme Court towards criminal cases. The lecture shed light on the evolving landscape of criminal law through these significant legal precedents.

Death and Life Sentences

Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases: The question here was the time limit to initiate action as provided under Sections 467 and 468 of CrPC which provides the time limit to initiate action starts from the day the cognisance is taken. Adopting a constructive and purposive interpretation, the constitutional bench held that in cases where the action was initiated well in time but cognisance was taken after limitation had expired, the person concerned should not be put to prejudice since the delay was a result of processes of the court. It was held that the benefit of limitation should always weigh in favour of the person concerned. 

Mohd Arif v. State: The Supreme Court Rules entitle a person awarded with a death sentence to file a review petition, but they mandate that the review petition be listed before the judges who constituted the bench initially and in chambers. There was no right of being heard in chambers either. The constitutional bench found this inconsistent with the right to life granted to every citizen, especially when life in its true form was at stake. The Supreme Court laid down three principles in this case:

(i) In review petitions concerning a death sentence, there shall be a right to oral hearings as a matter of right.

(ii) Such review petitions must be listed before a bench of 3 judges, irrespective of whether the original appeal was previously heard by a bench of 2 judges

(iii) Hearing must be held for at least half an hour.

This triggered other important questions - what about the review petitions which were disposed of earlier in chambers, some of which were decided by 2-judge benches? In response to this, the Supreme Court extended the right to such death convicts and permitted them to file new review petitions or to get their earlier review petitions reinstated. This led to a massive inflow of reinstated review petitions before three-judge benches. In most cases, the third judge was completely alien to the earlier proceedings. This appeared to be an advantage since in at least 10 matters, the benefit of commutation from a death sentence to life or even a clean acquittal was granted in open court. This was a significant decision because Supreme Court paved the way where a substantive benefit could be conferred upon persons awarded a death sentence where the matter could get a relook and fresh consideration.

Union of India v. V. Sriharan: In Swamy Shraddananda vs. State of Karnataka, it was held that in a case where a death sentence is awarded and but the court finds the case does not warrant death sentence and at the same time mere award of life imprisonment would not be sufficient, the court may award a life sentence with a rider that the executive shall not exercise the power of commutation or remission for a fixed period of 20-25 years whatever the court decides. This was challenged before the constitutional court. The bench held that it is within the powers of the court to commute the death sentence but the person shall not be released and his sentence cannot be commuted till he completes a fixed time in prison, the duration of such period to be fixed as the court deems appropriate. This case is important because the law declared here was adopted in some of the review petitions raised after the Mohd Arif case. So it appears that these two decisions almost run parallel. 

Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr v. Union Of India: In this case, the challenge was against the non-commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment on various grounds. The constitutional bench examined the five heads established for praying for commuting death sentences -delay, insanity, solitary confinement, judgments declared per incuriam and procedural lapses. These five heads were accepted as justifiable reasons for commuting the death sentence. This was seen as a recognition of the fact that even after awarding of the death sentence, there could be supervening circumstances which entitle a death convict to seek commutation. The Supreme Court delved deep into the solitary confinement aspect and observed that the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution inheres in every person, even death-row prisoners, till the very last breath of their lives. Reliance was also placed on the Sunil Batra case which held that solitary confinement prior to rejection of the mercy petition is unconstitutional and that the rules governing the confinement of death convicts should not be interpreted to violate Article 21. 

A similar position was taken in the case of Ajay Kumar Pal v Union of India (3-judge bench decision) where commutation was sought on two counts - delay and solitary confinement. It was held that the person was entitled to have death row commuted to life because otherwise, it would be negating his right under Article 21.

The same thought weighed in on the court in the decision of BA Umesh v. Union of India where commutation was sought on the count of solitary confinement. The review petition was rejected multiple times by different courts yet an appeal was entertained by the Supreme Court. Justice Lalit highlighted that this marks the approach of the Supreme Court to afford maximum benefit and discretion to ensure that right to life of every person is given a meaningful interpretation. 

The lecture then focused on another line of cases. As an aftermath of Mohd Arif, apart from review petitions, even criminal appeals started getting listed before the 3-judge benches of the Supreme Court. This was a significant development after Mohd Arif. 

In the landmark decision of Bachan Singh v State of Punjab, it was held that a death sentence was to be awarded after considering mitigating factors and aggravating circumstances. One mitigating factor was specifically spelt out - whether the accused was beyond retribution. For the purposes of this assessment, it was held that psychiatric and psychological evaluations of the accused must be made by the prosecution. However, this burden was never discharged either by the prosecution or by the defence. Such matters started coming up as criminal appeals before 3-judge benches and the Court began giving active directions for such assessments and submission of consequent reports. Appropriate directions were passed by the Supreme Court to the trial courts as well. The defence was also made responsible to place evidentiary material of such evaluation. The routine issuance of similar directions became a significant development in death sentence matters. 

Yet another significant feature was the idea of 'residual doubt theory' that arose when review petitions were listed which propagated that the person must be granted benefit. In the Shatrugan case, a bench examined the legitimacy of the theory and its American origins and rejected its basis. Nonetheless, at every juncture, the approach of the Court has been to see that maximum filters have been applied to ensure that the death sentence is awarded only in the rarest of rare cases.

Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh: In this case, the accused could not afford the services of a legal counsel and an amicus curia was consequently appointed on the same day the charges were framed.The trial in the case concluded within a month and the accused was awarded a death sentence. The hasty process did not find favour with the court. The 3-judge bench held that in matters where a death sentence could be an option, the court has to be very circumspect and cautious. Reasonable time should be given to the amicus curiae to prepare for the plea and such amicus curiae should have at least 10 years standing in court in capital offences.

Muthuramalingam v State: In this case, multiple sentences were awarded to a person. Among other issues, the prominent one was whether two life sentences could run consecutively. The 5-judge bench held that in normal circumstances, it must run concurrently. This was yet another benefit conferred on life convicts.

Contempt Jurisdiction

A significant seven-judge bench decision in the domain of contempt jurisdiction would be Justice Karnan's matter where the high court judge was convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. Although the Judge refused to participate in the proceedings, going through the records and finding material against him, the bench found substance in the allegations and convicted him. 

Sita Ram v. Balbir: The Court had directed the accused to be taken into custody. He evaded arrest by getting himself admitted in a hospital for almost a year and a half. It was also alleged that the doctors were finding reasons to keep him a patient for a year and a half. All police attempts to apprehend him were in vain which led to a contempt petition being filed. Investigation disclosed that there was no medical reason to justify his continued hospitalisation as an in-door patient. Interestingly, apart from the accused, the doctors were also convicted for obstructing the course of justice, despite being not included in the array of parties.

Similar stances were taken in other matters as well following this ruling where people beyond the array of parties were convicted and awarded an appropriate sentence for contempt.

Substantive Challenges against Certain IPC Provisions

In Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, a constitutional bench held that Section 377 would not be a valid provision. As such, same-sex relationships entered into by individuals would not invite criminal action under Section 377 and they cannot be proceeded against. This was a significant development in the last decade. 

Similarly, in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, the very same composition of 5 judges sat together to decide on the question of adultery under Section 497 of IPC. The bench found favour with the challenge and held that one who has had adulterous relationships cannot be penalised under criminal law, and cannot be prosecuted under Section 497, though it may be a ground to have the marriage annulled or for other associated proceedings.

Thus, on the substantive side, two sections of IPC which had been in vogue since 1860 were dealt with by constitutional benches and their validity were tested. These two decisions also paved the way for granting solace to affected parties.

In another important case of Mukesh Singh, the question was whether an officer was empowered to initiate an investigation under NDPS Act if the complaint was recorded at his instance. In Bhagwan Singh case, it was held that the complainant in a case cannot be the investigation officer and that the two identities should not merge together to ensure impartiality. However, it was held that a trial would not get vitiated wherever an investigation was conducted by the complaint, unlike as held by some three-judge benches. 

Some important three-judge bench decisions:

• Arup Bhuyan v State of Assam: It was held that mere membership of a banned organisation alone can be a factor to launch an investigation into the matter and that such membership can invite prosecution even if no act had been committed by such person in furtherance of the elements which constituted the crime in question. 
• Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors v. Union Of India: Here, certain provisions of the Money Laundering Act were challenged before the Court but the challenge was negated and it was held that prosecutions could be undertaken in furtherance of these provisions. This case is relevant here but Justice Lalit refrained from discussing it further since a review petition was still pending in this case.  
  
• Kapil Wadhawan case: The bench held that the day the remand order was issued by the court should be considered while calculating the period of 60 days or 90 days under Section 167 of CrPC. 

Concluding Remarks:

Justice Lalit highlighted that the Supreme Court has demonstrated a deep concern for cases involving the death sentence, ensuring that convicts are provided with every possible procedural advantage. The Court has strived to uphold the principles of due process and fair trial, granting benefits and safeguards to the accused throughout the judicial proceedings. Notably, the Supreme Court invalidated two provisions of the Indian Penal Code, bringing significant relief to those affected by them. Additionally, on the procedural front, the Court emphasized the importance of fair investigation and accorded the accused the benefit of doubt, all of which points to a shift in the attitude of the Apex Court in dealing with criminal cases. Justice Lalit acknowledged that while there are several important High Court decisions in these matters, they were not covered in the lecture.

The video of the lecture can be watched here :