Case Laws - Legal Language Module 2

CASE LAWS SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND MENKA GANDHI vs UNION IF INDIA ON 25 JANUARY , 1978 This case was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in 1978, which expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The case also established a relationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, known as the golden triangle or trinity, and held that a law depriving a person of personal liberty must not violate any of them. The case is regarded as one of the best judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India and rejected three decades of formalist interpretation1 The case started when Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government in the public interest, without giving any reasons. She challenged the order on the grounds that it violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the right to go abroad is a part of personal liberty under Article 21, and that no one can be deprived of this right except according to the procedure prescribed by law. The Court also held that the procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable, and not arbitrary, oppressive, or unfair. The Court further held that Section 10(3)© of the Passport Act, which gave the government the power to impound a passport in the public interest, was not violative of Articles 14, 19, or 21, as long as it was exercised in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Court did not pass an order on Maneka Gandhi’s passport, but asked the government to consider her representation against the impounding 23 The case is considered as a milestone in Indian constitutional law, as it expanded the scope and content of Article 21 and its interplay with other fundamental rights. It also marked a shift from a narrow and formalistic approach to a broad and liberal one in interpreting the Constitution. The case has been cited and followed in many subsequent cases involving human rights and civil liberties in India FACTS     The petitioner, Maneka Gandhi, was a journalist who had applied for a passport under the Passport Act of 1967. Her passport was issued on June 1, 1976. On July 2, 1977, the Regional Passport Office in New Delhi issued an order to impound her passport in the public interest, without giving any reasons. She was asked to surrender her passport within seven days. The petitioner wrote a letter to the Regional Passport Officer, asking for the reasons for the impounding of her passport. She also requested that she be given a copy of the statement of reasons, as required by Section 10(5) of the Passport Act. The Ministry of External Affairs replied to her letter, stating that her passport was impounded in the public interest under Section 10(3)© of the Passport Act, and that it was not necessary to furnish any reasons for doing so.    The petitioner challenged the order of impounding her passport by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the Supreme Court. She claimed that the order violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The respondent, Union of India, defended the order by stating that it was issued in accordance with the law and that the petitioner had no right to travel abroad as a part of her personal liberty under Article 21. The respondent also stated that the petitioner’s presence was likely to be required in connection with legal proceedings before a Commission of Inquiry. The Supreme Court heard the case by a seven-judge bench and delivered its judgment on January 25, 1978. The court held that the order of impounding the passport was invalid and unconstitutional, as it violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution JUDGEMENT     The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark decision in 1978, which significantly expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The court overruled the previous case of A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, which had implied the exclusiveness of fundamental rights, and established a relationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, known as the golden triangle or trinity, holding that a law depriving a person of personal liberty must not violate any of them1 The court also held that the procedure established by law under Article 21 cannot be arbitrary, unfair, oppressive, or unreasonable, and must conform to the principles of natural justice. The court rejected the narrow and formalistic approach to interpreting the Constitution and adopted a broad and liberal one, which expanded the scope and content of Article 21 and its interplay with other fundamental rights1 The court did not pass an order on the specific matter of Maneka Gandhi’s passport, but asked the government to consider her representation against the impounding. The court also held that the right to go abroad is a part of personal liberty under Article 21, and that no one can be deprived of this right except according to a fair, just, and reasonable procedure prescribed by law123 The case is considered as a milestone in Indian constitutional law, as it marked a shift from a positivist to a normative approach in interpreting the Constitution. The case has been cited and followed in many subsequent cases involving human rights and civil liberties in India 2 RATLAM MUNCIPALITY vs VARDICHAND AND ORS [ 29 JULY, 1980 ] This case was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in 1980, which dealt with the obligation of statutory bodies to provide basic sanitation facilities and prevent street contamination, as required by Section 123 of the M. P. Municipalities Act of 1961. The case also established the power of the Magistrate under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code to issue orders to remove public nuisance caused by environmental pollution. The case is regarded as one of the best judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India on environmental law and human rights 1 The case started when some residents of Ratlam city filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam, alleging that the municipality of that area was not building proper drains and latrines, and that the overflow of effluents from a nearby distillery and the open defecation by slum dwellers resulted in stench and stink in that area, which created a public nuisance and a health hazard for the residents. The Magistrate ordered the municipality to prepare a proper development plan within six months and to construct drains and latrines to avoid the contamination. The municipality appealed against the order, claiming that it lacked funds and resources to comply with it, and that it was not liable for the actions of the distillery or the slum dwellers. The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Magistrate. The municipality then appealed to the Supreme Court 23 The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Magistrate, holding that the municipality had a statutory duty to provide sanitary facilities and prevent street contamination under Section 123 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, and that it could not escape from its responsibility by pleading financial inability or blaming others. The court also held that Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code applied to statutory bodies as well as individuals, and that it empowered the Magistrate to issue orders to remove public nuisance caused by environmental pollution in a limited time period. The court further held that decency and dignity were non-negotiable aspects of human rights and were a primary obligation on local self-governing bodies. The court also observed that judicial activism was necessary to protect the environment and human rights in India FACTS   The case was filed by some residents of Ratlam city in Madhya Pradesh, who complained about the lack of proper drains and latrines in their area, and the resulting stench and stink caused by the overflow of effluents from a nearby distillery and the open defecation by slum dwellers. They alleged that this created a public nuisance and a health hazard for them and violated their right to live in a clean environment12 The residents approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers the Magistrate to issue orders to remove any public nuisance that is injurious to health or physical comfort. The Magistrate ordered the municipality to prepare a proper    development plan within six months and to construct drains and latrines to avoid the contamination12 The municipality appealed against the order, claiming that it lacked funds and resources to comply with it, and that it was not liable for the actions of the distillery or the slum dwellers. The municipality also argued that Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not apply to statutory bodies like itself, and that the order was beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate12 The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Magistrate. The High Court held that Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code applied to statutory bodies as well as individuals, and that the municipality had a statutory duty to provide sanitary facilities and prevent street contamination under Section 123 of the M. P. Municipalities Act of 1961. The High Court also held that the municipality could not escape from its responsibility by pleading financial inability or blaming others12 The municipality then appealed to the Supreme Court, which also dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Magistrate. The Supreme Court held that decency and dignity were non-negotiable aspects of human rights and were a primary obligation on local self-governing bodies. The Supreme Court also held that judicial activism was necessary to protect the environment and human rights in India JUDGEMENT    The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal of the municipality and upheld the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam, which directed the municipality to construct drains and latrines in the area where the residents complained of stench and stink caused by the overflow of effluents from a nearby distillery and the open defecation by slum dwellers. The Supreme Court held that the municipality had a statutory duty to provide sanitary facilities and prevent street contamination under Section 123 of the M. P. Municipalities Act of 1961, and that it could not escape from its responsibility by pleading financial inability or blaming others. The court also held that Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code applied to statutory bodies as well as individuals, and that it empowered the Magistrate to issue orders to remove public nuisance caused by environmental pollution in a limited time period. The Supreme Court further held that decency and dignity were nonnegotiable aspects of human rights and were a primary obligation on local self-governing bodies. The court also observed that judicial activism was necessary to protect the environment and human rights in India. The court quoted Mahatma Gandhi’s words: “The first condition of humaneness is a little humility and a little diffidence about the correctness of one’s conduct and a little receptiveness.”   The Supreme Court also praised the courage and initiative of the residents who filed the complaint, and said that they were “the real heroes of our legal system”. The court also appreciated the role of the Magistrate who passed the order, and said that he was “a model for magistrates everywhere”. The court also criticized the attitude of the municipality, which was “callous, careless, and indifferent” to the plight of the people. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs, and directed the municipality to comply with the order of the Magistrate within six months. The court also warned that if the municipality failed to do so, it would be liable for contempt of court and other legal consequences. 3 TRIAL OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK UNDER SECTION 124A AND 153A OF THE INDIA PENAL CODE Bal Gangadhar Tilak was a prominent nationalist leader and freedom fighter who was tried for sedition by the British government on several occasions for his writings and speeches that challenged the colonial rule. He was charged under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which defines sedition as an offence of exciting disaffection towards the government, and section 153A, which prohibits promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, etc1 The first trial of Tilak took place in 1897, when he was accused of inciting hatred and violence against the British through his articles in Kesari, a Marathi newspaper that he founded. He was also held responsible for the assassination of two British officers, W.C. Rand and Charles Ayerst, by Chapekar brothers, who were influenced by Tilak’s writings. Tilak defended himself by arguing that his articles were not seditious but patriotic, and that he had no connection with the Chapekar brothers. However, he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 18 months of rigorous imprisonment 23 The second trial of Tilak took place in 1908, when he was again charged with sedition for his articles in Kesari and Mahratta, an English newspaper that he also edited. He was arrested after the Muzaffarpur bomb case, in which Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki attempted to assassinate a British judge but killed two women instead. Tilak’s articles praised the revolutionaries and criticised the British policies in India. He was tried before a special tribunal of three judges, who found him guilty and sentenced him to six years of transportation to Mandalay jail in Burma (now Myanmar)45 The third trial of Tilak took place in 1916, when he was again charged with sedition for his speeches during the Home Rule movement, which demanded selfgovernment for India. He was arrested along with Annie Besant, another leader of the movement, and tried before a jury of six Europeans and three Indians. Tilak argued that his speeches were not seditious but constitutional, and that he had the right to criticise the government as a citizen. He also challenged the validity of section 124A as being contrary to the freedom of speech and expression. The jury gave a split verdict of 6-3 in favour of conviction, but the judge acquitted Tilak on the ground that there was no unanimity among the jurors. FACTS     Bal Gangadhar Tilak was a prominent nationalist leader and freedom fighter who was tried for sedition by the British government on several occasions for his writings and speeches that challenged the colonial rule. He was charged under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which defines sedition as an offence of exciting disaffection towards the government, and section 153A, which prohibits promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, etc1 The first trial of Tilak took place in 1897, when he was accused of inciting hatred and violence against the British through his articles in Kesari, a Marathi newspaper that he founded. He was also held responsible for the assassination of two British officers, W.C. Rand and Charles Ayerst, by Chapekar brothers, who were influenced by Tilak’s writings. Tilak defended himself by arguing that his articles were not seditious but patriotic, and that he had no connection with the Chapekar brothers. However, he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 18 months of rigorous imprisonment 23 The second trial of Tilak took place in 1908, when he was again charged with sedition for his articles in Kesari and Mahratta, an English newspaper that he also edited. He was arrested after the Muzaffarpur bomb case, in which Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki attempted to assassinate a British judge but killed two women instead. Tilak’s articles praised the revolutionaries and criticised the British policies in India. He was tried before a special tribunal of three judges, who found him guilty and sentenced him to six years of transportation to Mandalay jail in Burma (now Myanmar) 45 The third trial of Tilak took place in 1916, when he was again charged with sedition for his speeches during the Home Rule movement, which demanded self-government for India. He was arrested along with Annie Besant, another leader of the movement, and tried before a jury of six Europeans and three Indians. Tilak argued that his speeches were not seditious but constitutional, and that he had the right to criticise the government as a citizen. He also challenged the validity of section 124A as being contrary to the freedom of speech and expression. The jury gave a split verdict of 6-3 in favour of conviction, but the judge acquitted Tilak on the ground that there was no unanimity among the jurors. JUDGEMENT     Bal Gangadhar Tilak was a prominent nationalist leader and freedom fighter who was tried for sedition by the British government on several occasions for his writings and speeches that challenged the colonial rule. He was charged under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which defines sedition as an offence of exciting disaffection towards the government, and section 153A, which prohibits promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, etc1 The first trial of Tilak took place in 1897, when he was accused of inciting hatred and violence against the British through his articles in Kesari, a Marathi newspaper that he founded. He was also held responsible for the assassination of two British officers, W.C. Rand and Charles Ayerst, by Chapekar brothers, who were influenced by Tilak’s writings. Tilak defended himself by arguing that his articles were not seditious but patriotic, and that he had no connection with the Chapekar brothers. However, he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 18 months of rigorous imprisonment 23 The second trial of Tilak took place in 1908, when he was again charged with sedition for his articles in Kesari and Mahratta, an English newspaper that he also edited. He was arrested after the Muzaffarpur bomb case, in which Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki attempted to assassinate a British judge but killed two women instead. Tilak’s articles praised the revolutionaries and criticised the British policies in India. He was tried before a special tribunal of three judges, who found him guilty and sentenced him to six years of transportation to Mandalay jail in Burma (now Myanmar) 45 The third trial of Tilak took place in 1916, when he was again charged with sedition for his speeches during the Home Rule movement, which demanded self-government for India. He was arrested along with Annie Besant, another leader of the movement, and tried before a jury of six Europeans and three Indians. Tilak argued that his speeches were not seditious but constitutional, and that he had the right to criticise the government as a citizen. He also challenged the validity of section 124A as being contrary to the freedom of speech and expression. The jury gave a split verdict of 6-3 in favour of conviction, but the judge acquitted Tilak on the ground that there was no unanimity among the jurors. 4 THE NANAVATI TRIAL The Nanavati trial was a sensational case that took place in 1959, when a naval officer named Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati shot and killed his wife’s lover, Prem Ahuja, in a fit of rage. The case attracted unprecedented media attention and public sympathy for Nanavati, who was seen as a hero who defended his honour. The case also marked the end of the jury system in India, as the jury’s verdict of not guilty was overturned by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court12 The case had the following main events:      Nanavati returned home from his naval duty and found out that his wife, Sylvia, had an affair with Ahuja, a businessman and a friend of his. He dropped his wife and children at a cinema hall and went to confront Ahuja at his residence. He asked Ahuja if he would marry Sylvia and take care of their children, to which Ahuja replied that he was not interested in marriage. Nanavati then shot him three times and surrendered himself to the police12 Nanavati was charged with murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and tried by a jury of nine members. His defence lawyer argued that he acted under grave and sudden provocation, which reduced his offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 of the IPC. The prosecution argued that Nanavati’s act was premeditated and deliberate, as he had procured a revolver from his ship and went to Ahuja’s house with the intention of killing him. The jury gave a verdict of not guilty by an 8-1 majority, influenced by the media coverage and public support for Nanavati12 The sessions judge, however, did not accept the jury’s verdict and referred the case to the Bombay High Court under section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allowed him to do so if he disagreed with the jury on a point of law or misdirection. The High Court dismissed the jury’s verdict as perverse and unreasonable, and convicted Nanavati of murder under section 302 of the IPC. The court held that there was no evidence of grave and sudden provocation, as Nanavati had enough time to cool down and think rationally before shooting Ahuja. The court also held that Nanavati’s act was not in selfdefence, as Ahuja was unarmed and did not pose any threat to him. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment13 Nanavati appealed to the Supreme Court, which also upheld his conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that there was no grave and sudden provocation, as Nanavati had planned his act beforehand and had not lost his self-control. The Supreme Court also observed that the jury system was flawed and prone to manipulation by external factors, such as media and public opinion. The Supreme Court suggested that the jury system should be abolished in India, which was done by an amendment to the CrPC in 196014 Nanavati spent three years in jail before he was pardoned by Vijayalakshmi Pandit, the Governor of Maharashtra and sister of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who was influenced by public pressure and political lobbying. Nanavati then migrated to Canada with his wife and children, where he lived till his death in 2003 FACTS  The naval officer was Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, who was married to Sylvia, an English woman. They had three children and lived in Bombay (now Mumbai).       Sylvia had an affair with Prem Ahuja, a Sindhi businessman and a friend of Nanavati. She confessed this to Nanavati when he returned from his naval duty on April 27, 1959. Nanavati took his revolver from his ship and went to Ahuja’s residence. He asked Ahuja if he would marry Sylvia and take care of their children, but Ahuja refused. Nanavati then shot him three times and killed him. Nanavati surrendered himself to the police and was charged with murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was tried by a jury of nine members, who gave a verdict of not guilty by an 8-1 majority. The jury was influenced by the media coverage and public sympathy for Nanavati, who was seen as a hero who defended his honour. The sessions judge, however, did not accept the jury’s verdict and referred the case to the Bombay High Court under section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allowed him to do so if he disagreed with the jury on a point of law or misdirection. The High Court dismissed the jury’s verdict as perverse and unreasonable, and convicted Nanavati of murder under section 302 of the IPC. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment. Nanavati appealed to the Supreme Court, which also upheld his conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that there was no evidence of grave and sudden provocation, as Nanavati had planned his act beforehand and had not lost his self-control. Nanavati spent three years in jail before he was pardoned by Vijayalakshmi Pandit, the Governor of Maharashtra and sister of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who was influenced by public pressure and political lobbying. Nanavati then migrated to Canada with his wife and children, where he lived till his death in 2003. JUDGEMENT     The naval officer was Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, who was married to Sylvia, an English woman. They had three children and lived in Bombay (now Mumbai). Sylvia had an affair with Prem Ahuja, a Sindhi businessman and a friend of Nanavati’s. She confessed this to Nanavati when he returned from his naval duty on April 27, 1959. Nanavati took his revolver from his ship and went to Ahuja’s residence. He asked Ahuja if he would marry Sylvia and take care of their children, but Ahuja refused. Nanavati then shot him three times and killed him. Nanavati surrendered himself to the police and was charged with murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was tried by a jury of nine members, who gave a verdict of not guilty by an 8-1 majority. The jury was influenced by the media coverage and public sympathy for Nanavati, who was seen as a hero who defended his honour.    The sessions judge, however, did not accept the jury’s verdict and referred the case to the Bombay High Court under section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allowed him to do so if he disagreed with the jury on a point of law or misdirection. The High Court dismissed the jury’s verdict as perverse and unreasonable, and convicted Nanavati of murder under section 302 of the IPC. The court held that there was no evidence of grave and sudden provocation, as Nanavati had planned his act beforehand and had not lost his self-control. Nanavati appealed to the Supreme Court, which also upheld his conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that there was no grave and sudden provocation, as Nanavati had enough time to cool down and think rationally before shooting Ahuja. The Supreme Court also observed that the jury system was flawed and prone to manipulation by external factors, such as media and public opinion. The Supreme Court suggested that the jury system should be abolished in India, which was done by an amendment to the CrPC in 1960. Nanavati spent three years in jail before he was pardoned by Vijayalakshmi Pandit, the Governor of Maharashtra and sister of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who was influenced by public pressure and political lobbying. Nanavati then migrated to Canada with his wife and children, where he lived till his death in 2003. TRIAL OF DEREK CHAUVIN [GEORGE FLOYD ]     The trial took place from March 8 to April 20, 2021, in the Hennepin County District Court. It was the first criminal trial in Minnesota to be entirely televised and the first in state court to be broadcast live1 Chauvin was charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter for killing Floyd on May 25, 2020, by kneeling on his neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds, while Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on the street. The incident was captured on video by a bystander and sparked widespread protests and outrage over racial injustice and police brutality12 The trial involved 45 witnesses, including medical experts, police officers, bystanders, and Floyd’s family members. The prosecution argued that Chauvin’s use of force was excessive, unreasonable, and contrary to his training and policies. The defense argued that Chauvin acted reasonably and that Floyd’s death was caused by his underlying health conditions and drug use123 On April 20, 2021, after about 10 hours of deliberation, the jury of 12 members found Chauvin guilty on all three charges. The verdict was met with relief and celebration by Floyd’s family and supporters, as well as by President  Joe Biden and other political leaders. The verdict was also seen as a milestone for accountability and justice in the U.S., especially for Black Americans who have been disproportionately killed by police 12 On June 25, 2021, Chauvin was sentenced by Judge Peter Cahill to 22 and a half years in prison for second-degree murder, which was the most serious charge he faced. The sentence was 10 years more than the presumptive sentence of 12 and a half years under Minnesota’s sentencing guidelines, but less than the maximum penalty of 40 years. Judge Cahill said he based his decision on several aggravating factors, such as Chauvin’s abuse of authority, his cruelty to Floyd, his indifference to his suffering, his failure to render aid, and his role as a leader among the officers at the scene FACTS      The trial took place from March 8 to April 20, 2021, in the Hennepin County District Court. It was the first criminal trial in Minnesota to be entirely televised and the first in state court to be broadcast live1 Chauvin was charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter for killing Floyd on May 25, 2020, by kneeling on his neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds, while Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on the street. The incident was captured on video by a bystander and sparked widespread protests and outrage over racial injustice and police brutality12 The trial involved 45 witnesses, including medical experts, police officers, bystanders, and Floyd’s family members. The prosecution argued that Chauvin’s use of force was excessive, unreasonable, and contrary to his training and policies. The defense argued that Chauvin acted reasonably and that Floyd’s death was caused by his underlying health conditions and drug use123 On April 20, 2021, after about 10 hours of deliberation, the jury of 12 members found Chauvin guilty on all three charges. The verdict was met with relief and celebration by Floyd’s family and supporters, as well as by President Joe Biden and other political leaders. The verdict was also seen as a milestone for accountability and justice in the U.S., especially for Black Americans who have been disproportionately killed by police 12 On June 25, 2021, Chauvin was sentenced by Judge Peter Cahill to 22 and a half years in prison for second-degree murder, which was the most serious charge he faced. The sentence was 10 years more than the presumptive sentence of 12 and a half years under Minnesota’s sentencing guidelines, but less than the maximum penalty of 40 years. Judge Cahill said he based his decision on several aggravating factors, such as Chauvin’s abuse of authority, his cruelty to Floyd, his indifference to his suffering, his failure to render aid, and his role as a leader among the officers at the scene34 JUDGEMENT The trial of Derek Chauvin was a historic and highly publicized case that took place from March 8 to April 20, 2021, in the Hennepin County District Court. Chauvin was charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter for killing Floyd on May 25, 2020, by kneeling on his neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds, while Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on the street. The incident was captured on video by a bystander and sparked widespread protests and outrage over racial injustice and police brutality1 On April 20, 2021, after about 10 hours of deliberation, the jury of 12 members found Chauvin guilty on all three charges. The verdict was met with relief and celebration by Floyd’s family and supporters, as well as by President Joe Biden and other political leaders. The verdict was also seen as a milestone for accountability and justice in the U.S., especially for Black Americans who have been disproportionately killed by police2 On June 25, 2021, Chauvin was sentenced by Judge Peter Cahill to 22 and a half years in prison for second-degree murder, which was the most serious charge he faced. The sentence was 10 years more than the presumptive sentence of 12 and a half years under Minnesota’s sentencing guidelines, but less than the maximum penalty of 40 years. Judge Cahill said he based his decision on several aggravating factors, such as Chauvin’s abuse of authority, his cruelty to Floyd, his indifference to his suffering, his failure to render aid, and his role as a leader among the officers at the scene