State Of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

This order concerns Death Reference No. 1 of 1989 and an associated appeal. All counsel appearing in these matters jointly represented that the hearing would require at least three working weeks. To facilitate an uninterrupted hearing, the court accepted this assessment and directed that the matters be taken up from November 12, 1991, so they could be heard without break. Counsel also indicated that statements regarding the evidence would be made in the interim.

The order further records logistical directions regarding the amicus curiae. Mr. Nimbalkar, appointed amicus curiae to assist the court insofar as the charges against the accused are concerned, reported accommodation difficulties as he is traveling from Pune. The court requested counsel for the State of Maharashtra to arrange accommodation for him at Maharashtra Sadan during the hearing, including accommodation for his junior, Mr. Savarkar, with effect from November 11, 1991, until the hearing concludes. The court also granted an interim remuneration of Rs 5000 to Mr. Nimbalkar, noting that he had traveled to Delhi on more than seven occasions at his own expense to attend to these matters, and directed that payment be made expeditiously, and in any case before November 11, 1991. The order also directed that on November 12, 1991, these matters be shown as first after the miscellaneous matters.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court’s decision is grounded in practical procedural management and facilitation of effective legal assistance:

• Based on the unanimity among counsel that the hearing of the death reference and the appeal would require at least three working weeks, the court acceded to the joint request to commence hearing on November 12, 1991, with the intent that the matters be heard without interruption. The court also noted counsel’s statement that statements regarding evidence would be prepared in the interim.
• Recognizing the amicus curiae’s logistical constraints and his role in assisting the court on the charges against the accused, the court requested the State’s counsel to arrange accommodation at Maharashtra Sadan for the amicus and his junior, beginning November 11, 1991, and continuing until the conclusion of the hearing.
• The court granted an interim remuneration of Rs 5000 to the amicus curiae, expressly noting his more than seven trips to Delhi at his own expense for these matters, and directed expedited payment, in any event before November 11, 1991. This ensured that the amicus could continue to assist the court without undue financial burden.
• To prioritize and maintain continuity, the court directed that on November 12, 1991, these matters be listed first after the miscellaneous matters.

Holding and Implications

HEARING SCHEDULED AND ANCILLARY DIRECTIONS ISSUED

Direct effects:

• The death reference and associated appeal are scheduled to be heard from November 12, 1991, without break, and will be listed first after miscellaneous matters on that date.
• The State of Maharashtra’s counsel is requested to arrange accommodation at Maharashtra Sadan for the amicus curiae, Mr. Nimbalkar, and his junior, Mr. Savarkar, from November 11, 1991, until the hearing concludes.
• An interim remuneration of Rs 5000 is to be paid to the amicus curiae expeditiously, and in any case before November 11, 1991.

Broader implications: The order is administrative and procedural in nature, directed at scheduling and ensuring adequate assistance to the court. It does not set or discuss any new legal precedent.