The court’s commitment to navigating complex legal provisions to arrive at a just decision reflects its role as the ultimate interpreter and custodian of the law.
Author
Apoorv Agarwal, Assistant Lecturer, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India.
Summary
In a landmark judgment authored by Justice BV Nagarathna, the Supreme Court of India has recently demonstrated its unwavering commitment to upholding the rule of law. The case in question involves the remission of 11 convicts implicated in the 2002 Gujarat communal riots, providing a compelling backdrop to explore the court’s pivotal role in preserving justice, fairness, and constitutional principles.
The Philosophical Foundation: Justice Nagarathna’s judgment begins with a philosophical foundation rooted in the timeless wisdom of Plato. The court’s invocation of Plato’s curative theory of punishment signifies a departure from mere retribution toward an approach that views punishment as a means of prevention and reformation. Drawing parallels between penalty and medicine, the court envisions a justice system focused on the betterment of the individual rather than vindictive retribution. This philosophical underpinning sets the tone for a nuanced and compassionate approach to criminal justice.
Legal Considerations and Competency: The judgment meticulously delves into the legal intricacies surrounding the case, with a particular emphasis on the competency of the State of Gujarat to decide on remission. Through a thorough interpretation of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court unequivocally declares the State of Gujarat as incompetent to make such decisions. This intricate legal analysis underscores the Supreme Court’s role as a legal clarity and constitutional integrity guardian.
Published in: News24
To read the full article, please click here.
