Comprehension
Article 21 of the Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. Conversely, we think that a person is entitled to the protection of his liberty only in accordance with law. When a person’s liberty cannot be violated in breach of a law, can a person’s liberty be protected even in the face of a breach or violation of law? In other words, should rule of law prevail over personal liberty of a person or vice-versa? Further, should this Court weigh in favour of a person’s freedom and liberty even when it has been established that the same was granted in violation of law? Should the scales of justice tilt against rule of law? We wish to make it clear that only when rule of law prevails will liberty and all other fundamental rights would prevail under our Constitution including the right to equality and equal protection of law as enshrined in Article 14 thereof. Justice Nagarathna, who authored the judgement, began her pronouncement by invoking classical Greek Philosopher Plato. “Punishment is to be inflicted not for the sake of vengeance but for the sake of prevention and reformation. In his treatise, Plato reasons that the lawgiver, as far as he can, ought to imitate the doctor who does not apply his drug with a view to pain only, but to do the patient good. This curative theory of punishment likens penalty to medicine administered for the sake of the one being
chastised. Thus, if a criminal is curable, he ought to be improved by education and other suitable arts and the set free as a better citizen and less of a burden to the state. This postulate lies at the heart of the policy of remission.” Having said that, she also pointed out the competing interests involved, of the rights of the victim’s family to justice and the right of the convicts to a second chance by remission or reduction of their sentence. She added, “A woman deserves respect howsoever high or low she may otherwise be considered in the society or whatever faith she may follow or whatever creed she may belong to. Can heinous crime against women permit remission of the convicts by a reduction in their sentence and
by granting them liberty?”
(This extract has been taken from Bilkis Yakoob Rasul v. Union of India (2024) 5 SCC 481)
Question: 1

On which grounds remission can be denied?

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • On the discretion of the appropriate government
  • On the central government's discretion
  • On the state government's discretion
  • None of the above
Show Solution

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

In legal contexts, "remission" means lessening a punishment without erasing the crime or the conviction. Granting or rejecting remission considers several factors, governed by law, and decided by the relevant government. Remission can be denied for these reasons:

  • Governmental Discretion: The government typically decides on remission, considering the crime's severity, the convict's conduct, and the socio-political situation. Articles 161 and 72 of the Indian Constitution assign this power to state and central governments, respectively, based on the punishment and jurisdiction.
  • Public Welfare: Denying remission may be necessary to maintain public order and confidence in the justice system, especially if releasing a convict poses a threat.
  • Crime's Seriousness: Serious crimes, particularly those involving violence, may result in denial, as early release could be unjust.
  • Victims' Rights: Victim and family considerations are important. The justice system balances convict and victim rights to prevent injustice.

The correct answer is: "On the discretion of the appropriate government". This option correctly identifies the primary authority for remission decisions.

Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 2

Which of the following is not related to remission?

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Prem Raj, 2003 7 SCC
  • Sarat Chandra Rabha v. Khagendranath, AIR 1961 SC 334
  • Both (A) and (B)
  • Neither (A) nor (B)
Show Solution

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

To identify cases unrelated to remission, we must understand remission:
Remission generally involves reducing or canceling a penalty.
Legally, remission refers to shortening a punishment, often due to compassion or behavioral changes.
The provided text highlights that remission supports reformative justice, offering a second chance when just. It may reduce a sentence, balancing convict liberty with victim rights.
CasesRemission Relevance
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Prem Raj, 2003 7 SCCUnknown; no remission details provided.
Sarat Chandra Rabha v. Khagendranath, AIR 1961 SC 334Unknown; no remission details provided.
Both (A) and (B)Neither case explicitly relates to remission.
Neither (A) nor (B)Assumes relation to remission, which isn't clear.
Given the information and the lack of explicit remission connection in the cases, the option stating that “Both (A) and (B)” are unrelated to remission appears correct.
Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 3

Which of the following needs to be considered while entertaining an application for remission under the provisions of Cr.P.C., 1973?

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • The application for remission under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 could be only before the Government of the State within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant was convicted (appropriate Government) and not before any other Government within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant may have been transferred on conviction or where the offence has occurred
  • A consideration for remission must be by way of an application under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 which has to be made by the convict or on his behalf. In the first instance in as much as a person serving a life sentence cannot seek remission be noted whether there is compliance with Section 433A of the Cr.P.C., 1973 must unless fourteen years of imprisonment has been completed
  • Both (A) and (B)
  • Only (A)
Show Solution

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

To apply for remission under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), 1973, specific criteria must be met. These are detailed in sections (A) and (B), and the correct answer acknowledging both is "Both (A) and (B)".
Explanation:
(A) An application for remission under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, is only considered by the state government where the applicant was convicted ("appropriate Government"). It cannot be considered by any other government, even if the applicant was transferred or the crime occurred elsewhere.
(B) Remission applications must be initiated by or for the convict, as per Section 432 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. If serving a life sentence, remission is only possible if Section 433A of the Cr.P.C., 1973, is satisfied, meaning at least fourteen years of imprisonment have been served.
Both (A) and (B) are essential for a remission application to be valid, ensuring the remission process is legally sound.
This is supported by the legal context discussing the balance between the rule of law and personal liberty, referencing the case of Bilkis Yakoob Rasul v. Union of India.
Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 4

According to Section 432 (2) of Cr.P.C., when deciding on an application for remission, the government may seek the opinion of the presiding judge. In Bilkis Bano Case, how did the court interpret the expression "may" regarding the government's duty to seek the opinion of the judge?

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • The expression "may" indicate that it is optional for the government to seek the opinion of the presiding judge
  • The expression "may" mean that government can seek the opinion of any judge, not necessarily the presiding judge
  • The expression "may" must be interpreted as "shall", making it mandatory for the government to seek the opinion of the presiding judge
  • The expression "may" allow the presiding judge to refuse providing an opinion on the application for remission
Show Solution

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

The Supreme Court addressed the interpretation of "may" in Section 432(2) of the Cr.P.C. concerning the Bilkis Bano Case. The court determined if the government was obligated to seek the presiding judge's opinion. It ruled that "may" should be interpreted as "shall," making it mandatory for the government to obtain the judge's opinion before deciding on remission. This ensures the judge's opinion is essential, upholding the rule of law and Article 21 rights. The judgment balances victim and convict rights, stressing that remission decisions must adhere to the rule of law and justice principles.
Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 5

In Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the provision for commutation of a sentence of imprisonment of life has replaced the term 'not exceeding fourteen years' or 'fine' of the Cr.P.C. with:

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • not less than seven years
  • not less than ten years
  • not more than twenty years
  • seven years
Show Solution

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 alters how life sentences are commuted. The prior Cr.P.C. (Code of Criminal Procedure) allowed life sentences to be commuted to 'not exceeding fourteen years' or a 'fine'. The new law replaces this with 'not less than seven years'.

This modification sets a minimum sentence length for commuted life sentences, potentially emphasizing rehabilitation over solely punitive measures, as suggested by the provided context. The case of Bilkis Yakoob Rasul v. Union of India supports the idea that punishment should focus on improving the individual, balancing justice for victims with opportunities for convicts.

Therefore, the new commutation provision aims to prevent arbitrary sentence reductions by mandating a minimum term of 'not less than seven years', balancing punishment with the possibility of rehabilitation.

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Constitutional Laws

Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam

An unpleasant tussle ensured between the TATA Sons and Cyrus Pallonji Mistry (“CPM”) in October 2016, when Mistry, who was the sixth chairman of Tata Sons, was ousted from the position of Executive Chairman of Tata Sons Limited. CPM took over as the chairman in 2012 after Ratan Tata announced his retirement. Tata Group patriarch Ratan Tata had personally asked Cyrus Mistry to resign as chairman of Tata Sons as the board had lost faith in him, but his refusal led to the removal via majority vote. Cyrus Investments Private limited and Sterling Investment Corporation Private Limited belonged to the Shapoorji Palloni Group in which CPM held a controlling interest (about 2% of the issued share capital of Tata Sons). Seven out of the nine directors of Tata Sons voted for CPM’s replacement after Farida Khambata abstained and Mistry was declared ineligible to vote as he was an interested director. Mistry challenged his removal, accusing the board of mismanagement and of oppressing minority shareholders. however, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) rejected his petition. After this Mistry challenged his removal in National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). In 2018, NCLAT order restored Mistry as the group’s executive chairman. Tata Sons challenged that NCLAT order in Supreme Court. CPM also challenged the order for few more relief. Supreme Court stayed NCLAT’s order reinstating Cyrus Mistry as the executive chairman of Tata Sons and restoring his directorships in the holding company as well as three group companies, with a preliminary observation that the first impression of the order was “not good” and that the tribunal ‘could’ not have given consequential relief that had not been sought in the first place. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided the case in favour of Tata Sons. One of the issues decided by Supreme Court was that “whether the case was fit to be qualified as a situation of ‘Oppression and Mismanagement’ under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013?”. On this issue, the Supreme Court observed that “unless the removal of a person as a chairman of a company is oppressive or mismanaged or done in a prejudicial manner damaging the interests of the company, its members or the public at large, the NCLT cannot interfere with the removal of a person as a Chairman of a Company in a petition under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013.” This case highlighted the point that “an executive chairman does not have sovereign authority over the company. In corporate democracy, decision making always remains with the Board as long as they enjoy the pleasure of the shareholders. Likewise, an executive chairman will continue as long as he/she enjoys the pleasure of the Board. An assumption by the executive chairman that he/she would have a free hand in running the affairs of the company is incongruous to corporate governance and corporate democracy. The Tribunal held that the concept of ‘free hand rule’ is antithesis to collective responsibility and collective decision making”.
[Based on Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Cyrus Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC 122].
View Solution
Alastair Hudson in his book ‘Securities Law’ First Edition (Sweet & Maxwell), 2008 at page 342, refers to ‘Restricted Offers’ and noticed that there is no contravention of Section 85 of FSMA 2000, if: “(b) the offer is made to or directed at fewer than 100 persons, other than qualified investors, per EEA State”. The purpose underlying that exemption, the author says, is mainly the fact that the offer is not being made to an appreciable section of “the public” such that the policy of the prospectus rules generally is not affected. Further, the author says that “Self-evidently, while an offer to 99 ordinary members of the public would be within the literal terms of the exemption, it would not be the sort of activity anticipated by the legislation. Moreover, if a marketing campaign were arranged such that ordinary members of the people were approached in groups of 99 people at a time in an effort to avoid the prospectus rules, then that would not appear to be within the spirit of the regulations and might be held to contravene the core principle that a regulated person must act with integrity.”
I may, therefore, indicate, subject to what has been stated above, in India that any share or debenture issue beyond forty-nine persons, would be a public issue attracting all the relevant provisions of the SEBI Act, regulations framed thereunder, the Companies Act, pertaining to the public issue. Facts clearly reveal that Saharas have issued securities to the public more than the threshold limit statutorily fixed under the first proviso to Section 67(3) and hence violated the listing provisions which may attract civil and criminal liabilities. Principles of listing, which I may later on discuss, is intended to assist public companies in identifying their obligations and responsibilities, which are continuing in nature, transparent in content and call for high degree of integrity. Obligations are imposed on the issuer on an ongoing basis. Public companies who are legally obliged to list their securities are deemed to accept the continuing obligations, by virtue of their application, prospectus and the subsequent maintenance of listing on a recognized stock exchange. Disclosure is the rule, there is no exception. Misleading public is a serious crime, which may attract civil and criminal liability. Listing of securities depends not upon one’s volition, but on statutory mandate.
[Extract from Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Para 89-91, Civil Appeal No. 9833/2011 (SC)]
View Solution
The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past, it was thought that it included just two rules namely: (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem).
Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is not questioned.
If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry as observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [Civil Appeal No. 990/68, decided on 15-07- 1968], the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.
[Extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262, decided on April 29, 1969, hereafter ‘A.K. Kraipak’].
View Solution
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is by now well recognized and well defined by a catena of decisions of this Court. Where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promise and, in fact, the promise, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promise notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 229 of the Constitution. The rule of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine has to be moulded to suit the particular situation. It is not a hard-and-fast rule but an elastic one, the objective of which is to do justice between the parties and to extend an equitable treatment to them. This doctrine is a principle evolved by equity, to avoid injustice and though commonly named promissory estoppel, it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. For application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel the promise must establish that he suffered in detriment or altered his position by reliance on the promise.
Normally, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is being applied against the Government and defence based on executive necessity would not be accepted by the court. However, if it can be shown by the Government that having regard to the facts as they have subsequently transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by it, the court would not raise an equity in favour of the promise and enforce the promise against the Government. Where public interest warrants, the principles of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked. The Government can change the policy in public interest. However, it is well settled that taking cue from this doctrine, the authority cannot be compelled to do something which is not allowed by law or prohibited by law. There is no promissory estoppel against the settled proposition of law. Doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked for enforcement of a promise made contrary to law, because none can be compelled to act against the statute. Thus, the Government or public authority cannot be compelled to make a provision which is contrary to law.
[Extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 3 SCC 193, decided on January 20, 2011, hereafter ‘Shree Sidhbali Steels’].
View Solution