In a recent judgement (Judgement on Feb 23 - Baldev Singh and Ors. V. State of Punjab), the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of three persons convicted of rape from 10 years to 3 and a half years, and also asked the three convicts to pay a fine of Rs 50,000 each to the victim. In reducing the sentence, the court drew from the provision in S. 376 (punishment for rape) of the Indian Penal Code which allows the court to reduce the sentence for "adequate and special reasons". There have been a number of past cases where the Supreme Court has reversed High Court decisions reducing sentences under this provision for not giving suitable reasons. In 2007, the Supreme Court struck down a decision of the Karnataka High Court which had reduced the sentence of a convicted rapist to 3 and a half years. The High Court had stated that the sentence should be reduced since the accused was "a young boy of 18 years belonging to Vaddara Community and Illiterate". The Supreme Court stated that there is a legislative mandate to impose a sentence for not less than 10 years. Only in exceptional cases, for "adequate and special reasons" can a sentence less than 10 years be imposed. It overturned the Karnataka High Court decision saying that there was an "absence of any reason which could have been treated as "special and adequate reason"". In Baldev Singh's case, the Supreme Court said: 1. The fact that the incident is an old one (the incident took place in 1997) is a circumstance which fits into "adequate and special reasons" for reducing a sentence. 2. The parties have entered into a compromise among themselves. The issue is whether this judgement has gone beyond the legislative mandate, and whether it has adhered to the principles laid down by earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. In 2007, the Supreme Court itself stated that for a crime like rape, strong reasons have to be given to reduce the sentence envisaged by the legislature. Moreover, the provision does not envisage the settlement of a crime by payment of compensation to the victim of a crime. A criminal act is seen in law as a crime against the whole of society (which is why the state's prosecution agency, and not the victim, goes to court against alleged criminals). Therefore, criminal actions such as rape (or murder, robbery, kidnapping etc.) cannot be "settled" by the payment of compensation under the Indian Penal Code. In this light, it should be interesting to see whether the State files an appeal against this judgement.
On November 28, 2012, the Comptroller and Auditor General submitted its report on the implementation of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM). According to the report most of the projects initiated under JNNURM have not been completed. For instance with respect to urban infrastructure projects, only 231 projects out of the 1298 sanctioned projects have been completed. Similarly, with respect to housing projects, only 22 of the 1517 projects have been completed. Some of the other key recommendations of the report are:
The need and objectives of JNNURM According to the 2011 census India’s urban population has increased from 286 million in 2001 to 377 million in 2011 . With the increase in urban population, there is a requirement to improve the urban infrastructure and improve the service delivery mechanisms. With these specific objectives in mind, the central government launched the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission 2005-2006. The aim of the Mission is to encourage reforms and fast track planned development of identified cities (such as cities with a population of more than 1 million as per the 2001 census). JNNURM has two main components namely : (i) Urban Infrastructure and Governance and (ii) Urban Infrastructure Development for Small and Medium Towns. The duration of JNNURM was from 2005-06 to 2011-12. However, as the projects have not been completed the Government has extended its duration until March 2014. Funds for JNNURM The funds for JNNURM are provided through the Additional Central Assistance. This implies that the funds are provided as grants to the states directly from the centre. In the 2012 Union Budget, the central government has allocated Rs 12,522 crore for JNNURM. This represents around 10 % of the total central assistance through the different schemes to states and union territories in 2012-13. As on June 30 2012, 554 projects at a total cost of Rs 62,253 crore have been sanctioned under the Urban Infrastructure and Governance sub-mission of JNNURM. The table below shows the status of the sanctioned JNNURM projects in the different states. State wise status of the projects under JNNURM (as on August 6, 2012)
| Name of State | Total Allocation (Rs Lakh) | Number of sanctioned projects | Completed Projects |
| Andhra Pradesh | 2,11,845 | 52 | 18 |
| Arunachal Pradesh | 10,740 | 3 | NA |
| Assam | 27,320 | 2 | NA |
| Bihar | 59,241 | 8 | NA |
| Chandigarh | 27,087 | 3 | NA |
| Chattisgarh | 24,803 | 1 | NA |
| Delhi | 2,82,318 | 23 | 4 |
| Goa | 12,094 | 2 | NA |
| Gujarat | 2,57,881 | 72 | 40 |
| Haryana | 32,332 | 4 | NA |
| Himachal Pradesh | 13,066 | 5 | NA |
| Jammu & Kashmir | 48,836 | 5 | NA |
| Jharkhand | 94,120 | 5 | NA |
| Karnataka | 1,52,459 | 47 | 22 |
| Kerala | 67,476 | 11 | NA |
| Madhya Pradesh | 1,32,850 | 23 | 7 |
| Maharashtra | 5,50,555 | 80 | 21 |
| Manipur | 15,287 | 3 | NA |
| Meghalaya | 15,668 | 2 | NA |
| Mizoram | 14,822 | 4 | NA |
| Nagaland | 11,628 | 3 | NA |
| Orissa | 32,235 | 5 | NA |
| Punjab | 70,775 | 6 | 1 |
| Puducherry | 20,680 | 2 | NA |
| Rajasthan | 74,869 | 13 | 2 |
| Sikkim | 10,613 | 2 | NA |
| Tamil Nadu | 2,25,066 | 48 | 12 |
| Tripura | 14,018 | 2 | NA |
| Uttar Pradesh | 2,76,941 | 33 | 4 |
| Uttarakhand | 40,534 | 14 | NA |
| West Bengal | 3,21,840 | 69 | 15 |
Source: Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission; PRS.
