Bar & Bench News Network
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.
|
- 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
Related Stories
- Jindal and Michigan law schools inaugurate Joint Centre on Global Corporate & Financial Law and Policy with Justice A.K. Ganguly
- Infosys' Mohandas Pai to decide on implementation of the Quasi-Judicial order, Justice Verma upset on Sebi's 'Non Est' order
- “Who is the Chief Justice?”: SC restrains Justice Shylendra Kumar’s order
- Re-upped Round up: June 23: I-bankers get 16,550 and law firms get 1 crore, Bar Exam, Dinakaran, Legal Reforms, Courts on wheels, Nepal Constitution
- Re-upped Round up: June 24: Tamil in HC and SC, Jaitley on Bhopal, Justice Santosh Hegde and Law in HRD’s Umbrella body
- Re-upped Round up: June 29: Shardul Shroff on non-executive directors, CCI, Judges flying Economy Class, Calcutta High Court, Baxi and Justice A.P. Shah
- Re-upped Round up: July 20 - Moily on Foreign law firms, No appointment through exams, SC accepts Justice Ahmadi’s resignation
Other News
- Linklaters Managing Associate Pranav Sharma to rejoin Amarchand Mangaldas as Partner
- Re-Upped Round up May 17
- Recruitment Tracker: Luthra top recruiter followed by Amarchand and AZB for NALSAR Class of 2012
- Siddharth Wahi joins JSA as Of Counsel; Former Baker Mckenzie SA to focus on Energy Sector
- Re-Upped Round up May 16
- Bombay HC taking proactive steps to fight pendency; Special committee to examine pending civil suits for speedy disposal
- CLAT Booze Bills: NUJS defies providing information under RTI Act
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
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)










