Keywords: morals, ethics, extra-marital affair, culpable homicide
The Supreme Court reiterated Thursday that it is not to be lectured by society but rather bound by the rule of law in making its decisions. In a legal case involving a woman who was convicted of killing her twin sons by poisoning them after a conflict with her partner, a Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Ahsanuddin Amanullah granted her request for early release from prison. During the proceedings, the judges made a remark about the role of the Supreme Court in upholding the law, rather than enforcing moral values on society.
The Tamil Nadu government refused the woman’s application for pardon, stating that she had committed a vicious and savage act with the motive of continuing her extra-marital affair without any obstacles. The Court rejected the aforementioned argument, as it was based on false premises. The judges noted that the petitioner had actually attempted to take her own life following a disagreement with her partner.
Further, the court said, “This Court is not an institution to sermonise society on morality and ethics and we say no further on this score, bound as we are, by the brooding presence of the rule of law”[1]. The judges made it clear that the offense committed by the petitioner could not be classified as only “cruel and brutal” since the petitioner had made an attempt to end her life, which was thwarted by her niece at the last moment.
The Bench came to a decision in favor of the woman and reversed the verdict made by the Madras High Court that had upheld her conviction for murder. The Court, instead, acquitted her of the charge of attempted suicide. The State Level Committee had suggested that the woman be released from prison, but her application was denied by the government. The Supreme Court held that the State Government did not have a valid justification for doing so. It was thus ordered that the woman be released immediately, if necessary in any further case.
The legal representative of the petitioner had asked for a modification in her criminal conviction, specifically to alter it from murder to culpable homicide, which does not meet the criteria of murder. The top court rejected the same given that she had administered pesticide to her children[2].
Aditya a student of ILSR, GLA University, Mathura, 2nd Semester, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
[1] BAR AND BENCH, https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-not-institution-sermonise-society-morality-ethics
[2] ibid.
0 Comments