https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213062 Section 31-A of the NDPS Act, by making death penalty mandatory for specified repeat offences, was held inconsistent with Article 21 because it removed judicial discretion and made individualized sentencing, including consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and a meaningful pre-sentence hearing, ineffective. The provision was therefore read down to operate as a discretionary death penalty in appropriate cases. The challenge under Article 14 failed: the distinction between first-time and repeat offenders, including offences involving commercial quantities, was treated as an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to stricter deterrence in narcotic crime. en-us Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 May 2012 17:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213062 Section 31-A of the NDPS Act, by making death penalty mandatory for specified repeat offences, was held inconsistent with Article 21 because it removed judicial discretion and made individualized sentencing, including consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and a meaningful pre-sentence hearing, ineffective. The provision was therefore read down to operate as a discretionary death penalty in appropriate cases. The challenge under Article 14 failed: the distinction between first-time and repeat offenders, including offences involving commercial quantities, was treated as an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to stricter deterrence in narcotic crime. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213062