7 April 2025 Legal Updates

  BLANKET DENIAL OF PREMATURE RELEASE TO PERSON WHO MURDERED WOMAN OR CHILD AFFECTS THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS, NOT CONDUCIVE TO WELFARE STATE: KERALA HC  

a. Case Title:

• Balu v. State of Kerala and Others

b. Court:

• High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

c. Date of Decision:

• April 3, 2025

d. Bench:

• Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath

Case Summary

This case involves a writ petition filed by Balu, a life convict who had served over 22 years in Central Prison, Trichy. He challenged an order passed by the State of Kerala that rejected his claim for premature release.

Background Facts

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering a woman named Suvarna by drowning her in a pond and robbing her gold chain. By December 2023, he had completed 22 years and 5 months of actual imprisonment. The police authorities, probation officer, and Jail Advisory Committee had recommended his premature release. However, the State Level Advisory Committee rejected the recommendation, and the Government upheld this rejection primarily because the crime involved the murder of a woman.

Issue

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim for premature release was justified under existing laws and Supreme Court guidelines.

Court's Analysis

1. The court discussed the three types of premature release:

• Constitutional (under Articles 72 and 161),
• Statutory (under Sections 432-433 of CrPC), and
• Remissions under jail manuals.

2. The court referred to Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010 and related Rules which govern premature release in Kerala.

3. The court cited Supreme Court judgments in Laxman Naskar v. State of W.B and State of Haryana v. Jagdish which outlined factors to consider for premature release, including:

• Whether the offense affects society at large
• Probability of crime being repeated
• Potential of the convict to commit future crimes
• Purpose served by continued imprisonment
• Socio-economic conditions of the convict's family

4. The court noted that a Government Order dated June 14, 2022, which excluded those who murdered women from premature release, had been found arbitrary by the Supreme Court in Joseph v. State of Kerala.

5. The court emphasized that blanket exclusion of certain offenses from remission by an executive policy is arbitrary and contradicts reformation principles in the criminal justice system.

Judgment

• The court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's claim for premature release and directed the State to reconsider the recommendation of the Jail Advisory Committee for the petitioner's premature release in light of the observations made in the judgment within three months.

Key Legal Principles

• Premature release is based on the concept of reformation, rehabilitation, and reintegration of prisoners into society.
• The power to grant remission cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must be well-informed, reasonable, and fair.
• Blanket exclusion of certain offenses from remission by executive policy is arbitrary and undermines reformation principles.
• Premature release is recognized as a facet of prisoners' human rights.
• Factors such as age at the time of offense, period of imprisonment already served, and reformation during imprisonment must be considered when deciding premature release.

  SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SUIT NOT MAINTAINABLE FOR CANCELLED SALE AGREEMENT WITHOUT SEEKING DECLARATION AGAINST CANCELLATION: SUPREME COURT  

a. Case Title:

• Sangita Sinha vs. Bhawana Bhardwaj & Ors.

b. Court:

• Supreme Court of India 

c. Date of Decision:

• April 4, 2025 

d. Bench:

• Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan 

Facts

• Agreement to Sell (2008): Respondent No. 1 (buyer) entered into an unregistered Agreement to Sell with the seller (late Kushum Kumari) for a property worth ₹25 lakhs. She paid ₹2.51 lakhs in cash and issued three post-dated cheques of ₹2.5 lakhs each. 
• Seller’s Allegations: The seller claimed her signatures were fraudulently obtained and canceled the agreement in February 2008, refunding ₹2.11 lakhs via demand drafts and returning two cheques. 
• Buyer’s Suit: The buyer filed a suit for specific performance (May 2008) but encashed the refund drafts in July 2008 without contesting the refund. Lower courts decreed in her favor. 
• Appeal: The appellant (legal heir of the seller) challenged the decree, arguing the buyer’s acceptance of refund negated her claim. 

Issues

• Whether accepting a refund of earnest money during the suit’s pendency disentitles the buyer to specific performance? 
• Whether the buyer was "ready and willing" to perform the contract under the Specific Relief Act, 1963?
• Whether suppression of material facts (refund) and lack of declaratory relief against cancellation vitiated the suit?

Arguments of Appellant:

•  The buyer encashed refunds, proving she abandoned the agreement. 
•  No declaratory relief was sought against the cancellation. 
• Suppression of material facts (non-disclosure of refund in plaint). 

Arguments of Respondent:

•  Partial refund (₹40k retained) kept the agreement alive. 
• The seller’s unilateral cancellation was invalid. 

Court’s Reasoning

• Readiness and Willingness:  Continuous readiness and willingness under Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act is mandatory. Encashing refunds demonstrated the buyer’s unwillingness to proceed. 
• Cancellation of Agreement:  The seller’s cancellation letter (Feb 2008) and buyer’s acceptance of refund terminated the agreement.  Further, the buyer’s failure to challenge cancellation via declaratory relief rendered the suit non-maintainable.
• Suppression of Material Facts:  - Non-disclosure of refund in the plaint barred equitable relief. 

Decision

• Appeal Allowed: Lower court decrees set aside. 
• Sale Deed Nullified: Buyer’s sale deed declared void. 
• Refund Ordered: Appellant to refund ₹24.61 lakhs deposited by the buyer. 

  SECTION 18 OF LIMITATION ACT APPLIES TO PUBLIC PREMISES ACT: SUPREME COURT  

a. Case Title:

• New Mangalore Port Trust & Anr. vs. Clifford D Souza Etc.Etc. 

b. Court:

• Supreme Court of India 

c. Date of Decision:

• April 3, 2025 

d. Bench:

• Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale 

Facts

New Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT) revised license fees for land allotted to respondents (licensees) retrospectively from 2002 and 2007.  The Respondents challenged the retrospective revision in Karnataka High Court, arguing it was impermissible. The Single Judge dismissed their plea (2013), but their appeal to the Division Bench remained pending.   NMPT initiated recovery under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act). The District Judge and High Court quashed these proceedings, deeming them time-barred under the Limitation Act. 

Key Legal Issues

• Whether proceedings under the PP Act are subject to the Limitation Act? 
• Whether the respondents’ communications (e.g., letters in 2015) acknowledging pending litigation constituted an acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, extending the limitation period?

Supreme Court's Decisions

• Applicability of Limitation Act: The Court affirmed that the Limitation Act applies to PP Act proceedings.
• Acknowledgment Under Section 18: Respondents’ letters (04.02.2015, 07.09.2015, 25.02.2016) acknowledged liability (even while disputing retrospective application), triggering a fresh limitation period (extending up to 03.02.2018). 

Decision:

Set aside the High Court’s order quashing recovery proceedings and restored NMPT’s writ petitions to be heard after disposal of the pending Division Bench appeals challenging the retrospective fee revision. 

Key Takeaways

• Section 18, Limitation Act: Even conditional acknowledgment (e.g., disputing liability but referencing pending litigation) extends limitation. 
• Pending Appeals: Courts may defer recovery proceedings if the outcome of related appeals directly impacts liability. 
• Public Premises Act: Recovery proceedings under PP Act must align with the Limitation Act’s timelines unless extended by acknowledgment.