Correct option is A
The correct answer is (a) Mitthu v. State of Punjab. Explanation:
· Mitthu v. State of Punjab: In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, which mandated the death penalty for a person already serving a life sentence if they committed murder, was unconstitutional. The Court found this provision to be ultra vires (beyond the powers) of Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
Information Booster:
· Section 303, IPC: Mandated the death penalty for any person serving a life sentence who commits murder. This provision did not allow for judicial discretion in sentencing.
· Article 14, Indian Constitution: Ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
· Article 21, Indian Constitution: Protects the right to life and personal liberty, stating that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
Additional Information:
· Mitthu v. State of Punjab (1983): The Supreme Court ruled that the mandatory death penalty under Section 303 was unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21. The Court emphasized the need for judicial discretion in sentencing.
