Approach to death penalty: Why Supreme Court has decided to settle differences among judgments | Explained News,The Indian Express

Should there be a separate hearing for sentencing after a court has passed a conviction order on a capital offence? Where have courts and the law differed on this question?

Friday, Sep 23, 2022

					 ePaper 
					 Today’s Paper 		
								 
			
			
				
					
													
													
				
				Journalism of Courage
			
			
							
		
		
		
			
				
					HomeExplainedPolitical PulseIndiaCitiesOpinionEntertainmentLifestyleTechnologyVideosSportsAudioEducationPremiumInvestigations					
				
					Subscribe
					Sign In
				
			
			
		
		
		TrendingCrossword & SudokuUPSC KeyEveryday ExplainersHealth SpecialsAcademic CounsellingFollow AuthorsCricket			
	
	
				
					
												
			

			
				
	
				
	
	if (window.innerWidth) //if browser supports window.innerWidth
	var page_w=window.innerWidth;
	else if (document.all) //else if browser supports document.all (IE 4+)
	var page_w=document.body.clientWidth;
	//var page_w=screen.width;
	if( page_w > 1024 ) {
		jQuery(".add-left,.add-right").show();
	}else{
		jQuery(".add-left,.add-right").hide();
	}

							
			
									
					
							
	
		HomeExplainedApproach to death penalty: Why Supreme Court has decided to settle differences among judgments		

							
													Approach to death penalty: Why Supreme Court has decided to settle differences among judgments
													
														Should there be a separate hearing for sentencing after a court has passed a conviction order on a capital offence? Where have courts and the law differed on this question?
															
					
											
						
														
								
									
										
											
																									
													
														 Written by 					Apurva Vishwanath
						, Edited by Explained Desk					
	 /// Story Page Editor Details //// 
	jQuery(".bulletProj").hover(function() {
	   var dividshow = '#div_'+jQuery( this ).attr( 'id' );
	   jQuery( this ).siblings("#div_written_by_parent").html( jQuery( dividshow ).html() ).show();
	   
	})
	jQuery(".editor-details, .editor").hover(function () {},function () {
	   var dividhide = '#'+jQuery( this ).attr( 'id' );
	   jQuery( "#div_written_by_parent" ).html("");
	   jQuery( "#div_written_by_parent" ).hide();
	});


	 New Delhi | September 21, 2022 11:24:25 am														
													
															
													
												
												


		
		
			
				
			
		
		
			
				
			
		
		
			
				
			
		
		
			
			
			
		
	

											
											
														
														
														
													Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit during a function at the Supreme Court in New Delhi. (Express Photo: Amit Mehra, File)The Supreme Court on September 19 referred to a larger Bench issues relating to procedural norms for imposing the death sentence. The intervention is seen as a major step in plugging gaps in the way in which trial courts award the death sentence.

What has the court said?

A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) U U Lalit and Justices Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia said that there are conflicting judgments on when and how the sentencing hearing must take place, and referred the issue to a five-judge Constitution Bench.

“This order is necessitated due to a difference of opinion and approach amongst various judgments, on the question of whether, after recording conviction for a capital offence, under law, the court is obligated to conduct a separate hearing on the issue of sentence,” the order said.

What is the difference of opinion?