DADU @ TULSIDAS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DADU @ TULSIDAS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Section 32A of the NDPS Act, 1985, is unconstitutional to the extent it excludes the power of courts to suspend sentences awarded under the Act, as this intrudes on the judicial power of appellate courts and the right of appeal under Articles 14 and 21. However, the provision validly withdraws the Executive's power to suspend, remit or commute sentences for NDPS offences, and the grant of parole by executive authorities is not affected by Section 32A. Courts must exercise suspension of sentence only within the strict limitations of Section 37 of the Act.

Parties
Petitioner: Dadu @ Tulsidas; Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (criminal) Under Article 32 / Supreme Court Final Judgment on Constitutional Validity
Outcome
Writ petitions partly allowed
Legal Topics
Suspension of Sentence, Remission and Commutation of Sentence, Judicial Review, Validity of Section 32 a NDPS Act, Parole
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Suspension of Sentence Remission and Commutation of Sentence Judicial Review Validity of Section 32 a NDPS Act Parole

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dadu @ Tulsidas

Petitioner

State of Maharashtra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (criminal) Under Article 32 / Supreme Court Final Judgment on Constitutional Validity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 32A of the NDPS Act, 1985, ousting court jurisdiction to suspend sentence, is unconstitutional
  2. 2 Whether Section 32A validly removes the Executive's power to suspend, remit or commute sentences for NDPS offences
  3. 3 Whether parole is affected by Section 32A of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Section 32A of the NDPS Act, 1985, is unconstitutional to the extent it excludes the power of courts to suspend sentences awarded under the Act, as this intrudes on the judicial power of appellate courts and the right of appeal under Articles 14 and 21. However, the provision validly withdraws the Executive's power to suspend, remit or commute sentences for NDPS offences, and the grant of parole by executive authorities is not affected by Section 32A. Courts must exercise suspension of sentence only within the strict limitations of Section 37 of the Act.

Court Disposition

Writ petitions partly allowed

Orders

  • Section 32A does not affect the powers of authorities to grant parole to convicts under the Act.
  • Section 32A is unconstitutional only to the extent it takes away the power of courts to suspend sentence under the Act.