Today(9th September),The Supreme Court condemned the use of dishonest tactics in seeking remission of sentences. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih criticized a convict for not disclosing the withdrawal of his plea to the Delhi High Court.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(9th September), the Supreme Court of India voiced its strong dissatisfaction with the dishonest tactics employed by convicts seeking remission of their sentences. A Bench comprised of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih took a stern stance against misleading legal practices after discovering that a convict had failed to disclose the withdrawal of his remission plea to the Delhi High Court.
“In the past three weeks, this is the sixth case involving false claims in remission applications. We are being lenient, which is why such cases are being addressed.”
-Justice Oka lamented, reflecting the Court’s frustration with the frequent occurrence of false statements in such cases.
The Supreme Court’s discontent was evident as it dismissed the convict’s appeal while imposing a financial penalty of Rs.10,000. This penalty was levied on the appellant as part of the Court’s broader effort to address and deter fraudulent claims. The appeal in question was challenging a July 22 order from the Delhi High Court, which the convict argued had arbitrarily dismissed his application for remission.
Upon review, it was revealed that the Delhi High Court had not actually dismissed the application. Contrary to the convict’s claim, the plea was not arbitrarily dismissed but was instead withdrawn by the convict himself. This crucial fact was deliberately concealed in the appeal presented to the Supreme Court, which led the Bench to make a critical observation.
“A review of the contested order reveals that the petitioner’s application was heard, and after some discussion, the petitioner’s advocate withdrew it. The petition contains entirely misleading information, which has been concealed.”
– the Supreme Court noted in its order, highlighting the deceptive nature of the plea.
In light of these findings, the Supreme Court decided not to entertain the plea further and emphasized the importance of honesty in legal proceedings by imposing the aforementioned costs. The Bench directed that the Rs.10,000 be deposited with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, reinforcing the Court’s commitment to maintaining integrity within the judicial system.
