The Court applied to dispose of three writ petitions seeking parole. It impleaded the NCT of Delhi and directed the competent authority to decide pending parole representations on merits within two weeks.
Directions issued for the competent authority to decide parole representations on merits within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA
/
-i
versus STATE THROUGH CBI Respondent Through : Mr.Sanjeev Bhadari, SPP with Mr.Prateek Kumar, Advocate. Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC forNCT of Delhi.
I \
' r
Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC for NCT of Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
ORDER
% 20.03.2018
302/364/201 IPC and Sections 364/302/201/218 IPC to engage an advocate to file SLP.
^.GARG, J.
MARCH 20, 2018/sa
W.P.(Crl.) 822/IS & connected matters
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Supreme Court should direct the competent authority to decide parole representations within two weeks.
Whether the NCT of Delhi is a necessary party to the parole proceedings.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Nitin Chauhan
Neeraj Kumar
State through CBI
NCT of Delhi
S.P. Garg
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
