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.
By Rohit and Aakanksha In February this year, Bihar made it mandatory for its employees to declare their assets. The new guidelines prescribe that departmental proceedings would be initiated against those who fail to submit these details. Information filed by employees is now being displayed online. For instance, click here to see information put out by the Department of Agriculture. Some other states have also followed suit. Rajasthan became the second state to do so. Asset details of employees have been posted on the Department of Personnel website. MP and Meghalaya have announced their intention to implement similar changes. The central government too has decided to put the asset details of All India Service and other Group A officers in the public domain. Employees of the central government are governed by the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Under these rules, civil servants are required to file details of their assets on a periodic basis. However, until now the information provided by employees was held in a fiduciary capacity and kept confidential. With the new order coming in, this information will now be available to the public. To ensure compliance, the government has decided that defaulters should be denied vigilance clearance and should not be considered for promotion and empanelment for senior level positions. It is interesting that the Central Information Commission, in an earlier decision dated July 23rd 2009, had held that 'disclosure of information such as assets of a Public servant, which is routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by the Public servants, cannot be construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual. There will only be a few exceptions to this rule which might relate to information which is obtained by a Public authority while using extraordinary powers such as in the case of a raid or phone-tapping. Any other exceptions would have to be specifically justified. Besides the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that even people who aspire to be public servants by getting elected have to declare their property details. If people who aspire to be public servants must declare their property details it is only logical that the details of assets of those who are public servants must be considered to be disclosable. Hence the exemption under Section 8(1) (j) of RTI cannot be applied in the instant case.' For the Supreme Court judgement referred to in the above decision, click here. These are interesting developments, especially given the recent debate on corruption. Let's wait and see if other states follow Bihar's lead.
