STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS versus MUKESH SHARMA

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS versus MUKESH SHARMA

Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 is constitutionally valid as the requirement to lay rules before the State Legislature under Section 59(2) of the Prisons Act, 1894 is directory and not mandatory. The rule is consistent with Section 433-A Cr.P.C. as remission is not a matter of right and the State may impose minimum requirements or restrictions for considering claims for remission beyond the statutory minimum of 14 years.

Parties
Appellants: State of Rajasthan and Others; Respondent: Mukesh Sharma
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside
Legal Topics
Remission of Sentence, Constitutional Validity of Prison Rules, Interpretation of Statutes
Criminal Law Prison Law Constitutional Law Remission of Sentence Constitutional Validity of Prison Rules Interpretation of Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Rajasthan and Others

Appellants

Mukesh Sharma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 8(2)(i) of Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 is constitutionally valid
  2. 2 Whether Rules need to be laid before the State Legislature prior to promulgation under Section 59(2) of Prisons Act, 1894
  3. 3 Whether Rule 8(2)(i) is contrary to Section 433-A of Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 is constitutionally valid as the requirement to lay rules before the State Legislature under Section 59(2) of the Prisons Act, 1894 is directory and not mandatory. The rule is consistent with Section 433-A Cr.P.C. as remission is not a matter of right and the State may impose minimum requirements or restrictions for considering claims for remission beyond the statutory minimum of 14 years.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside

Orders

  • Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rules, 2006 held valid and consistent with law
  • High Court orders striking down Rule 8(2)(i) set aside