Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
ISSUES REALTED TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS- ART 21 (DEATH PENALTY OR CAPITAL…
ISSUES REALTED TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS- ART 21
DEATH PENALTY OR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
DEMAND
ABOLISH DEATH PENALTY
KEEP IT PUNISH HENOIUS CRIME LIKE TERRORISM
GLOBAL TRENDS
UNIVRSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CALLS FOR PROHIBTION OF TORTUOROUS PUNISMENTS
RECENTLY 114 COUNTRIES VOTED FORMEMORANDUM TO ABLOLISH DEATH PENALTY... INDIA OPPOSED IT.
ICC WHICH WAS ESTD. TO TRY CRIMES LIKE GENOCIDE ALSO GIVE MAX PUNISHMENT OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT
IN INDIA ALSO JUSTICE VERMA COMITEE NOT RECOMMENDED DEATH PENALTY FOR RAPES
POSITION OF SC:
SC HAVE HUMANISED PROCEDURE FOR DEATH PENALTY
BACHAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB 1980 :
COURT GAVE DOCTRINE OF RAREST TO RARE CASES: DEATH PENALTY TO BE EXCEPTION RATHER THAN NORM
MACHALI SINGH VS STATE OF PUNAJB 1983
SC GAVE GUIDELINES FOR RAREST OF RARE CASES: DEATH PENALTY TO BE GIVEN ONLY WHEN CRIME IS SUCH THAT LIFE IMPRISONMENT IS INADEQUATE
SC ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE CASES IN PAST THAT WERE WRONGLY DECIDED
LIFE ONCE TAKEN CAN'T BE GIVEN BACK.. IN SUCH CASE DEATH PENALTY WILL BE LIKE MURDER COMMITTED BY STATE
SHATRUGAN CHAUHAN 2014
INCASE OF UNNECESSARY DELAY TO DISPOSE MERCY PETITION SC TO COMMUTE DEATH SENTENCE INTO LIFE IMPRISONMENT
MIN GAP OF 14 DAY B/W MERCY REJECTION AND EXECUTION
FAMILY MEMBERS TO BE INFORMED
MOHAMMAD ARIF CASE 2O14
SC GAVE SUBSTANTIVE PROCEDURE OF REVIEW PETITION
TO TAKE PLACE IN OPEN COURT NOT IN CHAMBER OF JUDGES
PUCL VS STATE OF MAHARASTRA: SC GAVE SUBSTANTIVE PROCEDURE FOR ENCOUNTER
ACCUSED IT ALIVE SHOULD BE GIVEN MEDICAL AID
INVESTIGATION BY CID.
NO REWARDS OR PROMOTION TILL CAASE IS DISPOSED
LAW COMMISSION ON DEATH PENALTY
SUGGESTED TO RETAIN DEATH PENALTY IN CASE OF HEINOUS CRIME LIKE TERRORISM
3 PRINCIPLE OF PUNISHMENT
RETRIBUTIVE THEORY OR REVENGE:
AN EYE OF EYE WILL MAKE WHOLE WORLD BLIND
DETERANCE: NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO ESTD. CORELATION .IN INDIA IT IS IRRELEVANT AS DEATH PENALTY IS GIVEN IN RAREST OF RAE CASES
REFORMATIVE: SHOULD BE TH WAY FOR A CIVILISED SOCIETY
A INNOCENT LIFE CAN BE SAVED : GIVEN LOOPHOLES IN JUDICIAL SYTEM AND CRIME INVETIGATION
DATA SHOWS MOST OF DEATH PENALTIES ARE FROM POOR BACKGROUND PEOPLE
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
QUESTION IS RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS A FR OR NOT??
PRESENT STAUS: MATTER IS SUBJUDICE
CURRENT ISSUE: PIGHT TO PRIVACY DEBATE IN AADHAR SCHEME
ATTORNY GENERAL OF INDIA HELD THAT RTP IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
SC ON RTP
SC IN 1962 HELD THAT RTO IS NOT A GAURENTEED RIGHT,
HOWEVER ART 21 IS REPOSITRY OF RESIDUAL RIGHT AND RTP IS A PART OF IT
GOVIND VS STATE OF UP 1975
SC HELD THAT IT RECOGNISES RIGHT TO PRIVACY BUT NOT A ABSOLUTE RIGHT
ART 32
PART OF BASIC STRUCTURE
ART 32 MAKES SC SENTINNEL QUI VIVE(SOLDIER WITH SWORD)
CONS. DOESN'T PRESCRIBE PROCEDURE TO AVIAL RELEF UNDER ART 32
SO SC APART FROM LOCUS STANDI, ALSO INTRODUCED PIL
PIL TO FULFILL MANDATE OF ART 39A (FREE LEGAL AID)
SC HELD THAT PEOPLE NOT ONLY WITH CLEAN HAND BUT LEAN HEART ALSO SHOULD APPORACH COURT
DOCTRINE REGAURDING ART 32+
DOCTRINE OF DICTAS
NO DELAY IN APPROACHING SC: BASED PIL FILLING SOU MOTO OR WITH A POSTCARD ALSO
DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA
IF PERSON FOR ALREADY APPROACHED HIGH COURT FOR ISSUING WRITS: ART 226 THAN HE CAN'T APPROACH SC UNDER ART 32 EXCEPT FOR HEABUS CORPUS