Advocate Malhotra at today’s hearing pointed out that at least two of the PIL-petitioners were politicians, who were trying to put an accused back in jail.
He said that there has to be fundamental rights violations of the petitioners for the pleas to be maintainable or else it would open floodgates, to which Justice Nagarathna responded,
“It is a PIL. Else, it would in be their private interests. In PIL it is public interest, [An Article] 32 plea can be in private interest. See 32 can be ‘my license is cancelled etc, that is private interest’. We will give you an example. A private company is given license by the government for an industry. Some villagers’ lands would be affected or get submerged. Now if not the villagers but a public-spirited person challenges, will it be thrown out saying your private interests are not affected when it is about the environment.“
Justice Bhuyan reiterated that it was not a criminal matter anymore.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued that remission is nothing but reduction of sentence, and there can be no PILs challenging a sentence.
“No third party can have a say in reduction of sentence, it is between the court, the accused and the prosecution.”
Justice Nagarathna then remarked,
“But here it was by an administrative order. The consideration was not by a judicial body.”
The ASG responded saying that third-parties can still not have a say in such matters.
Source: Barandbench
