The bench also recounted the law laid down by the Supreme Court on the subject in cases such as Union of India v. Sriharan @ Murugan and Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, to quote:
“… If the opinion of the presiding judge does not comply with the requirements of Section 432 (2) or if the judge does not consider the relevant factors for grant of remission that have been laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (supra), the government may request the presiding judge to consider the matter afresh …
… an opinion accompanied by inadequate reasoning would not satisfy the requirements of Section 432 (2) of the CrPC. Further, it will not serve the purpose for which the exercise under Section 432 (2) is to be undertaken, which is to enable the executive to make an informed decision taking into consideration all the relevant factors,” the apex court said.
Source: Barandbench
