In March, both the convicts moved the top court contending that its January 8 verdict cancelling remission of their sentence was “in teeth of” a 2002 constitution bench order and sought the issue to be referred to a larger bench for “final” adjudication.Shah and Soni, both lodged in Godhra sub-jail after the apex court verdict, said an “anomalous” situation has arisen wherein two different coordinate benches (benches of the same strength) have taken diametrically opposite views on the same issue of premature release as well as on which policy of the state government would apply to the petitioners for remission.The plea, filed through Malhotra, said while one bench on May 13, 2022, categorically ordered the Gujarat government to consider Shah’s application for premature release in terms of the state government’s remission policy of July 9, 1992, the bench that pronounced the verdict on January 8, 2024, concluded that it was Maharashtra and not the Gujarat government that was competent to grant remission.”That with greatest respect the judgment rendered on January 8, 2024, is directly in teeth of the constitution bench decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case of 2002 and the same needs to be set aside, as if the same is permitted then it would lead to not only judicial impropriety but to uncertainty and chaos as to which precedence (sic) of law has to be applied in future.
Source link
