Re-upped: Centre to formulate uniform sentencing policy by courts;Justice SU Khan says order to unlock Ayodhya site was given in 'undue haste'

Bar & Bench News Network

Oct 08, 2010

In the wake of negative reactions being expressed by various members of the public regarding different sentences being handed down for similar cases, the Centre is proposing to formulate a national uniform sentencing policy.

 

The Express Buzz quoted the Law Minister, Veerappa Moily saying, “We are working on the uniform sentencing policy which is on the lines of the ones in place in the United States and the United Kingdom.” Moily went on to state that the proposed policy will ensure that judges do not hand down varied sentences but follow the standards laid down under the proposed uniform sentencing policy.

 

The proposal for this latest policy is understood to have come about in place following the disappointment regarding the Supreme Court commuting the death sentence of the accused in the Priyadarshini Mattoo case to life imprisonment.

 

The US follows Federal Sentencing Guidelines while the UK follows Sentencing Guidelines Council which gives guidance to courts with respect to sentencing.

 

 Justice S.U. Khan:

 

Justice S.U. Khan, who was a member of the Bench that decided the recent Ayodhya title dispute case has come out and said that the District Judge at the Faizabad High Court acted in uncommon haste and ignored procedures while hearing a petition to open the gates to the disputed site in 1986.

 

The Times of India has reported that Justice Khan went on to say that, “It is a sound principle that not only should justice be done but it must also appear to be done. Before passing the judgment, the learned District Judge first buried the second limb of the principle (appearance of justice) very deep." 

 

The order to open the gates to the temple was based on a petition by a party who was not related to the dispute and resulted in the Muslim party being denied a fair hearing. On September 30th of this year, a 3 judge Bench at the Allahabad High Court had passed a verdict in the 60 year old Ayodhya case which held that the disputed land must be divided into 3 parts between the various parties to the suit. 

 

Following the verdict, there have been reports that the parties are in negotiation to come to a mutual settlement.

 

 

 

 

Add to My Clips Print this Story Email this Story

 

Facebook LinkedIn MySpace Digg Del.icio.us twitter

Comments(1)
  • 1. "About time the centre makes such a move. The United States has had sentencing guidelines for a really long time now. ". Ajay Kumar, Bangalore
Post Your Comment

Name* :

Location :

Email Id :

Comment * :

Notify me when there is a comment


 

The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?

bullets

 

May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the  comments (2)

 

 

Thank you. Comments are subject to moderation.