Source: http://onelawstreet.com/mohd-arif-v-supreme-court-of-india-2014-9-scc-737/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:20:10+00:00

Document:
facts and the submissions are elaborately mentioned by my  learned  brother.
I do not propose to repeat them.
deprived of his life except  according  to  procedure  established  by  law.
not propose to deal with the said aspect of the matter.
against the Government of India.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to  as  “the  CrPC”).
of the criminal justice administration system can pass.
manned by persons who are either Sessions Judges or Addl. Sessions Judges.
relatively more experienced members of the subordinate judiciary.
in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence.
s.374, Criminal Procedure Code, the entire case is before  the  High  Court.
penalty of death is awarded.
heard by at least two judges.
expressly conferred under Article 137 of the Constitution.
or order made by it.
15.   In exercise of such power, this Court made Rules from  time  to  time.
of the said Rules occurring in Part VIII deals with the subject  of  review.
apparent on the face of the record.
except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.
by circulation without any oral arguments.
petitioner may supplement his  petition  by  additional  written  arguments.
or order sought to be reviewed.
v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (1980) 4 SCC 680.
various classes of cases brought before it and make suitable rules.
there is no special virtue in sanctifying the dismissal by an  oral  ritual.
from the mandate of Article 21.
decision would justify an oral hearing in a review petition.
every case where review is sought by a condemned convict.
Constitution and the law of this country  against  awarding  death  penalty.
examination of the correctness of such decision.
to review its judgments subject to any law made by the Parliament.
for an oral hearing flows from the mandate of Article 21.
different conclusions on the same set of facts does not arise.
be left to the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 145.
inasmuch as persons on death row are denied an oral hearing.
2.    Leading  the  arguments  on  behalf  of  the  petitioners,  Shri  K.K.
circulation  - that is without oral argument.
turn solely upon the skill  of  counsel  who  drafts  the  review  petition.
should also be in open Court.
Petition (Crl.) No. 52 of 2011.
exhaustive reading of Krishna Iyer, J.  judgment  in  P.N.  Eswara  Iyer  v.
collectively apply their minds in Chambers to dispose of  review  petitions.
Deo Chauhan v. Bani Kanta Das, (2010) 14 SCC 209 at para 35].
heard the original appeal have since retired.
manuscript advocacy is as wrong as judicial allergy to arguments  in  court.
jurisdictions,  there  was  exclusion  of  public  hearing  in  such  cases.
petitions in most of the cases.
events, new light and other grounds which we find in Order 47, Rule 1,  CPC.
criminal proceedings when review power is invoked from the same source.
piece-meal with truncated parts.  That will be avoidance of our  obligation.
should be given as a matter of right?
space for justifying oral hearing in cases like the present.
amended by the Constitution 44th Amendment).
freedoms which had already been dealt with in Art.13 (corresponding to  Art.
Constitution (Art. XXXI), because they were more ‘specific’.
Munshi, in favour of ‘due process’.
taking of life and liberty by legislation.
decide in any way it likes”.
to  incorporate  “due  process”  from  the  5th  amendment   to   the   U.S.
arbitrary but should be just, fair and reasonable.
671-674, 687 per Bhagwati, J. and at page 720-723  per  Krishna  Iyer,  J.].
“To sum up, 'procedure’ in  Article 21 means  fair,  not  formal  procedure.
liberty, the procedural safeguards enshrined  in  Article 21 are  available.
be applied to the fundamental right to life and liberty.
upon this aspect amply demonstrate such a divergent  approach  being  taken.
has been upheld in P.N. Eswara Iyer (supra) which is  a  binding  precedent.
by two Courts below namely the trial  court  as  well  as  the  High  Court.
life is the only paramount factor in these cases.
be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than three Judges.
a Bench of not less than three Judges for hearing it.
be heard only by the same bench which originally heard the criminal  appeal.
two additional Judges be added at the review stage in death sentence cases.
cases demands a limited oral hearing for the reasons given above.
petition, we would not like to reopen all these proceedings at  this  stage.
sentence of life imprisonment means life and not a mere 14  years  in  jail.
India (Constitution Bench), Naib Singh v. State of Punjab,  Ashok  Kumar  v.
W.B., Kamalanantha v. State of T.N., Mohd. Munna v. Union of India and  C.A.
inflicted under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence.
45.   This petition is therefore dismissed.
47.   All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
364A and 376A, 376E and 396.
145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or require.
subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law.
Rules, 2013 have come into force.
such review are to be entered.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 Art.13
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.