We are not an institution to sermonise society on morality and ethics; bound by rule of law: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday reiterated that as a judicial institution, it is not meant to be lecturing society, but rather, it is bound by the rule of law while taking its decisions. (Nagarathinam v. State Through Inspector of Police).A Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Ahsanuddin Amanullah made the observation while granting premature release to a woman who was behind bars for 20 years after being convicted of killing her twin sons by poisoning them following a spat with her paramour.The Tamil Nadu government had rejected her application for remission, contending that she had intended to continue her illicit relationship without any hinderance by committing a cruel and brutal act.The Court, noting that this was not the case since the petitioner had herself tried to die by suicide at the time after a quarrel with her paramour, stated,"This Court is not an institution to sermonise society on morality and ethics and we say no further on this score, bound as we are, by the brooding presence of the rule of law. That said, it cannot be simply bracketed as a ‘cruel and brutal’ offence as the Appellant herself was trying to end her life but was prevented by her niece in the nick of time.".The Bench accordingly disposed of a Madras High Court verdict that had upheld the woman's conviction for murder, but removed the charges under attempted suicide.Her remission was recommended by the State Level Committee, but the application had been rejected by the government..The apex court said that there was no valid groud for the State government to do so."We are not oblivious to the crime but we are equally not oblivious to the fact that the Appellant (mother) has already suffered at the cruel hands of fate. The reason thereof is an arena this Court would avoid entering." The woman was accordingly directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case..Counsel for the appellant had sought modification of the conviction from that of murder to one for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The top court rejected the same given that she had administered pesticide to her children..Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu with Advocates S Prabu Rama Subramanian, Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Bharathimohan M, Karuppiah Meyyappan, Vairavan, Priya R, Sabari Balapandian and Avinash Kumar appeared for the appellant.Advocate Joseph Aristotle S and Vaidehi Rastogi appeared for the State..[Read judgment]