A petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Bihar Government for granting premature release to former Bihar MP Anand Mohan in the case for the mob lynching of Gopalganj District Magistrate G Krishnaiah in 1994.

A petition was filed by Uma Krishnaiah, who is the widow of District Magistrate G Krishnaiah, her husband was killed after an attack by a mob led by Mohan was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence.

Mohan walked out of jail on April 24 after serving 14 years of imprisonment after remission of sentence was granted by the Bihar Government.

State of Bihar provisions says that person convicted for murder of public servants on duty is not eligible for premature release.

The plea states how provisions were not considered by amending the remission policy in April, paving the way for the release of Anand Mohan.

Uma Krishaniah moved Supreme Court filing a writ petition that challenged the circular issued by the Bihar Home Department (Prisons) on April 10 amending Rule 481(1)(a) of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012, as per which persons convicted for murder of a public servant on duty are also eligible for remission.

She has also challenged the premature release of Anand Mohan.

The counsel of Petitioner mentioned the petition before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for urgent listing, upon which the CJI agreed to list it on May 8.

The petitioner argues that the relevant factors such as conduct of the prisoner in the jail, past criminal antecedents have been ignored.

It is further argued that the amendment of the state remission policy to facilitate Mohan’s release is contrary to public policy and would amount to demoralising public servants. It is argued that the policy which was prevalent at the time of the offence should be applied.

The Supreme Court has directed the government of Tamil Nadu to consider the premature release of a convicted Sri Lankan national, who has already spent more than 35 years in prison.

The order was passed recently by the Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal on a petition against denial of the petitioner’s premature release based on a 2018 policy.

The Apex Court directed the State of Tamil Nadu to act on the petitioner’s appeal within three weeks.

As per the petitioner, he was convicted to life imprisonment and had already spent more than 35 years in jail. He sought premature release in terms of Policy dated February 1, 2018.

However, his prayer was rejected on February 12, 2021 on two grounds. First, the seriousness of the crime committed and second, trials of the co-accused were separated. So, premature release of the petitioner would be a hindrance to a fair trial.

The Apex Court took note of an earlier affidavit filed by the State Government and observed that the petitioner’s conduct in jail was satisfactory. The Court referred to the 2021 order and recorded that it was essential to ascertain whether the petitioner has been involved in any other crime.

The petitioner sought impleading of the Government of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs, which was permitted, in order to ensure that after the petitioner’s premature release, he would return to his home country.

The Supreme Court has sought response from the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Prison for not considering premature release of two prisoners, who have been languishing in jail for the past almost two decades, despite an Apex Court ruling on the matter.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha on Friday issued notice on a contempt petition filed against the DG, Jail, Uttar Pradesh, seeking reply by January 28.

Appearing for both the petitioners, Advocate Rishi Malhotra apprised the Supreme Court that on March 14 last year, the top court of the country had directed the authorities to consider the premature release of both the petitioners within three months, as per the August 1, 2018 policy.

Despite this, their applications for premature release were not considered, contended the Counsel.

He said Mohammad Nurula has remained in Varanasi jail for nearly 21 years, while Alok Mishra has been in Fatehgarh jail for nearly 22 years. A contempt petition was also filed in this matter in October last year, but the government did not consider their case.

Therefore, the petitioners moved the Supreme Court by way of a contempt petition for release, added Malhotra.

The petition had alleged that the DGP did not comply with the earlier orders of the Apex Court issuing strict directions to the DGP of Uttar Pradesh to take all necessary steps to ensure that applications for premature release or remission were duly considered.

The Bench observed that it had directed the respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh) on March 14 last year to consider premature release of 48 petitioners within a period of three months. 

Though most of them were released, the remaining cases have not been considered.

On October 21 last year, this court passed an order on a contempt petition for the consideration of cases in six weeks, in spite of which, the compliance has not been effected, it noted. 

The Bench directed the petitioner shall serve an additional copy of the hearings to this court by next Friday. It also ordered issuing of an additional copy of the paper book shall be issued to Additional Solicitor General Garima Prasad, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh. 

Earlier in another case, the top court of the country had issued strict directions to the Director General of Prisons of Uttar Pradesh to take all necessary steps for consideration of premature release or remission of prisoners. 

The Bench further sought an affidavit from the UP DGP on whether the State had complied with its judgment of 2022 regarding premature release of certain prisoners in line with a 2018 policy.

(Case title: Mohd Nurulla and Another vs Rajesh Kumar Singh and Another)

The Supreme Court  has asked the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Prisons to file his stand on a personal affidavit on whether the State had complied with a 2022 judgment directing it to consider the premature release of certain prisoners in line with a 2018 policy.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha also have issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority.

The CJI orally remarked that the State Legal Services will visit all prisons to find out about all such inmates etc.

The Court has asked the DG prisons to five details in a personal affidavit about the Number of steps which have been taken in pursuance of the judgment in Rashidul Jafar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and the institutional arrangements put in place

It is also asked about the number of convicts who are eligible for premature release district-wise,along with the cases that have been considered for premature release since the judgment of Rashidul Zafar

The Court also asked about the number of cases that remain pending and the time period by which they shall be considered.

The Bench spoke about the  Standing Policy regarding premature release of prisoners who were sentenced to life imprisonment on the occasion of every Republic Day (26th January) issued in August 2018. 

The policy set out categories of convicts entitled to premature release.

The order of today asked for an affidavit was passed in compliance to a decision of the top court rendered on September 6, 2022.

The decision said that the cases pertaining to of convicts undergoing life sentence in the State who were eligible to be considered for premature release in terms of the policy were to be considered in terms of the procedure stipulated in the policy. 

The  bench of CJI DY Chandrachud along with Justice Hema Kohli said that all decisions of premature release of convicts, including those, beyond the present batch of cases would be entitled to such a beneficial reading of the policy.

The court also ordered that no application was required to be submitted by a convict undergoing life imprisonment for premature release. 

The Court also gave instructions to the District Legal Services Authority of the State, in coordination with the jail authorities to take necessary steps for ensuring that all eligible cases of prisoners entitled to premature release were duly considered.

A Central Government has filed a review petition before the Apex Court challenging the November 11 order which allowed release of six convicts in the assassination case of the Former PM Rajiv Gandhi. 

The review petition was filed through advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma who stated that the Union government was not made a party to the hearing and its stance was not heard and consequently, several glaring errors on record were not brought to the notice of the Court.

The plea said that  it was very strange that the when the matter pertains to the former PM ,why was Union Government not made a party.

The petition added that due to procedural lapse of convicts/petitioners, the crucial and important evidence in the matter were not given importance, which has eventually resulted into patent and manifest errors apparent on the face of record creeping into the final judgment.

The Apex court had ordered for the premature release of the 6 convicts who were involved in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi named Nalini Sriharan, P Ravichandran, Jayakumar, Robert Payas, Santhan and Murugan who were serving life sentence in the case.

The Supreme Court on Friday had ordered premature release of all six persons, who were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for their role in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

The Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice B.V. Nagarathna ordered premature release of Nalini Sriharan, R.P. Ravichandran, Jayakumar, Robert Payas, Santhan and Murugan on the grounds that their conduct inside the prison had been satisfactory and that they had been languishing in jail for a very long time.

The Apex Court observed that the order passed in the case of another convict in the case, A.G. Perarivalan, would be applicable to them as well.

The top court of the country noted that Nalini, who had a PG diploma in Computer Application, had remained in jail for over three decades and her conduct had been satisfactory. 

For Ravichandran, the Apex Court observed that he had undertaken various studies during his time in jail, including a PG diploma in Arts. The convict even collected various amounts for charity, noted the Court.

It said the conduct of Robert Pais had also been satisfactory and he was suffering from various illness. Pais has obtained various degrees during this period, noted the Court.

In case of Jaikumar, the top court of the country observed that his conduct was found satisfactory and he also has taken various studies.

Suthenthira Raja was also suffering from various ailments. He has written various articles, which have not only been published, but have also received awards, the Court further observed and directed for their release, unless they were wanted in any other case.

On May 18 this year, the Supreme Court had evoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to release Perarivalan based on a recommendation given by the Tamil Nadu government in September, 2018.

Following the development, Nalini and Ravichandran approached the Madras High Court in June, seeking the same relief.

The Supreme Court on Friday ordered premature release of all six persons, who were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for their role in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

The Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice B.V. Nagarathna ordered premature release of Nalini Sriharan, R.P. Ravichandran, Jayakumar, Robert Payas, Santhan and Murugan on the grounds that their conduct inside the prison had been satisfactory and that they had been languishing in jail for a very long time.

The Apex Court observed that the order passed in the case of another convict in the case, A.G. Perarivalan, would be applicable to them as well.

The top court of the country noted that Nalini, who had a PG diploma in Computer Application, had remained in jail for over three decades and her conduct had been satisfactory. 

For Ravichandran, the Apex Court observed that he had undertaken various studies during his time in jail, including a PG diploma in Arts. The convict even collected various amounts for charity, noted the Court.

It said the conduct of Robert Pais had also been satisfactory and he was suffering from various illness. Pais has obtained various degrees during this period, noted the Court.

In case of Jaikumar, the top court of the country observed that his conduct was found satisfactory and he also has taken various studies.

Suthenthira Raja was also suffering from various ailments. He has written various articles, which have not only been published, but have also received awards, the Court further observed and directed for their release, unless they were wanted in any other case.

On May 18 this year, the Supreme Court had evoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to release Perarivalan based on a recommendation given by the Tamil Nadu government in September, 2018.

Following the development, Nalini and Ravichandran approached the Madras High Court in June, seeking the same relief.

However, the High Court refused to entertain the plea, stating that it did not have the same powers as the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution and asked them to move the Apex Court.

Later, the remaining four convicts also filed similar pleas before the top court.

Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated on May 21, 1991 at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu by a LTTE suicide bomber named Dhanu, while he was about to address an election rally.

In May, 1999, the Supreme Court had upheld the death sentence of four convicts in the case, including Perarivalan, Murugan, Santhan and Nalini.

The top court of the country commuted the death sentence of Nalini in 2001, on the grounds that she had a daughter to raise. A similar relief was provided to Perarivalan, Santhan and Murugan in 2014, on the grounds of delay in deciding their mercy petitions.

The Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing on the plea of Nalini Sriharan, who is serving life sentence in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, seeking her premature release.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna could not take up the matter on Monday due to paucity of time.

The Supreme Court had asked the Centre and the Tamil Nadu government to respond to a plea filed by Nalini Sriharan for premature release from her life term.

The bench of Justice B R Gavai and Justice B V Nagarathana had issued notices to the Centre and the Tamil Nadu government seeking their replies on the plea. The Apex Court has also issued notices on the plea filed by RP Ravichandran, who is also a convict in the case.

Nalini has challenged the June 17 order of the Madras High Court which had rejected her plea for early release.

Nalini had cited before the Apex court the judgement ordering the release of co-convict AG Perarivalan.

The High Court of Madras had rejected the petitions of both Sriharan and Ravichandran, who were convicted in the assassination of the former prime minister.

The High Court had said High Courts do not have any power to do so under Article 226 unlike the Supreme Court which enjoys the special power under Article 142.

The Top Court under Article 142 had invoked its extraordinary power and ordered the release of Perarivalan, who had served over 30 years in jail, and said the Tamil Nadu governor ought not to have sent the “binding” advice made by the state cabinet for his release to the President.

The Apex Court in the case has said that the advice of the state cabinet is binding on the Governor in matters pertaining to the remission of sentences under Article 161 of the Constitution.

Under Article 142, the Top Court may issue any verdict or order necessary to provide “complete justice”.

Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated when he arrived to speak at an election rally on the night of May 21, 1991 at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu by a LTTE suicide bomber named Dhanu.

The Top Court in its May 1999 order had upheld the death sentence of four convicts Perarivalan, Murugan, Santhan and Nalini.

In 2014, the Court commuted the death sentence of Perarivalan to life imprisonment along with those of Santhan and Murugan on grounds of delay in deciding their mercy petitions.

However, in Nalini’s case, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in 2001 itself as she had a daughter who had to be raised. 

The Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to consider cases of premature release of murder convicts, who have undergone 14 years of imprisonment and had undergone actual sentence of more than 16 years and a total sentence of more than 20 years of remission in view of policy dated August 1, 2018, issued by the Uttar Pradesh government.

A Bench comprising Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari disposed of the petition filed by Dev Nath Singh, a convict in central jail of Varanasi, seeking direction to the Uttar Pradesh Government for premature release of prisoners, as per the policy dated August 1, 2018.

The Court gave three months time to the Uttar Pradesh Government to consider the case of premature release of prisoners and release them accordingly in view of the State Policy.

For the state of UP, Counsel Vishnu Shankar Jain appeared before two judges bench headed by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari.

For the Petitioner, Advocate Rishi Malhotra addressed the 2 Judges Bench they have withdrawn cap of 60 year old policy of the state government as the state disclosed in their counter affidavit.

Dev Nath Singh and others raised the main ground in their Criminal Writ Petition that the Uttar Pradesh Government has not premature released the prisoners who undergone more than 20 years of the total sentence awarded to them, despite the fact that they were entitled for premature release under the policy dated 1.08.2018 in view of Article 161 of Constitution.

The said writ Petition also raised the fact that several other convicts, prior had appeared before the apex court, prayed for premature release as they were entitled in view of policy dated 1.08.2018, yet their release was not considered by jail authorities.

The object of the Policy dated 1.08.2018 is to prevent overcrowding in State Prisons, and to prevent frustrations alongwith rehabilitation, as observed by the Supreme court in Writ Petitions such as W.P.(Crl) No. 155/2021 and other etc.

Certain amendments were introduced on 28.07.2021 in the policy dated 1.08.2018 by Uttar Pradesh Government, states the Writ Petitioner Dev Nath Singh in its Writ Petition.

That in the said amendment in Policy, U.P. Govt. decided to release such convicts who have attained age of 60 years or more than that, only they can be entitled to take benefit of the policy, which means that those prisoners who have already completed their undergoing sentences , even though they are entitled , they cannot be premature released in view of this amendment effected on 28.07.2021.

Dev Nath singh , in its writ petition not only challenges the arbitrary amendment dated 28.07.2021 but also urges the Supreme court to consider this petition on grounds of parity vis a vis those convicts who were released vide order dated 4.05.2021.

The factual matrix of the case is that after exercising the power under Article 161, the governor approved state policy dated 1.08.2018 for release of prisoners sentenced to life Imprisonment in Uttar Pradesh.

The then unamended policy included all male , female prisoners , former serving 14 years of actual sentence and 16 years with remission including trial period, later serving 16 years of actual sentence and 20 years with remission including trial period.

In the list of releasing premature convicts also includes prisoners suffering from medical diseases, along with prisoners whose ages ranges from 70 years and 80 years.

There were some prohibited categories such as NDPS Act, plus murders, fixed sentence by court etc, contends Dev Nath singh in the Writ Petition.

The Supreme court in its order dated 4.05.2021, while allowing the Writ Petitions of other convicts gave its findings which is mentioned below in gist :-

a. Premature Release will apply only to the convicts who are languishing in jail for offence of murder/ life sentenced under i.e. u/s 302 IPC.

b. Undergone minimum 14 years of Imprisonment and had in actual, served more than 16 years of such sentence ,which includes also total sentence of more than 20 years with remission.

c. Policy dated 1.08.2018 shall apply to persons serving life imprisonment.

The apex court relied upon judgment of 3 judges in ‘State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216 and held that state must exercise power of remission while keeping in mind the benefit to be given to a convict.

It was further contended in the Writ Petition (Crl) No. 528 of 2021 that the apex court directions were repeatedly flouted by the government and hence committed contempt of the court directions, the Petitioner Dev nath singh had to prefer fresh contempt petition before this Hon’ble Court.

Upon filing of the said contempt Petition, the Uttar Pradesh Government forthwith complied with the directions issued by the apex court passed on 4.05.2021 and released 32 convicts on 16.07.2021 who had undergone more than 20 years of total sentence including actual sentence of 16 years and above.

New Delhi (ILNS): The Supreme Court has granted conditional premature release to two convicts for their “good conduct” during their stay for nearly two decades in prison.

The order was on an appeal filed by convicts Satish and Vikky, seeking special leave to appeal against a common order of April 28, 2017 of the Allahabad High Court. The petitioners were sent to life imprisonment under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code.

A bench of Justices N. V. Ramana, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy held that they (the convicts) have displayed good conduct during their sentence of nearly two decades in prison. They were serving term for their crime of kidnapping for ransom and have “suffered the consequences of their actions” while being in prison for two decades.

The bench has given its reasons behind granting of release and said that they have shown more than satisfactory conduct in jail, according to the affidavit filed by that concerned authorities and that there must be a balance between individual and societal welfare. 

The judgment said: “Given their age, their case ought to be viewed through a prism of positivity. They retain the ability to reintegrate with society and can spend many years leading a peaceful, disciplined, and normal human lives. Such a hopeful expectation is further concritised by their conduct in jail.”

Further, the court noted that the convicts had no material criminal antecedents. The court formed that view based on reformation theory and gave emphasis on the point that everyone should be given a chance to correct themselves.

The refusal to give premature release by the court was “vague, cursory, and merely unsubstantiated opinions of state authorities” without being based on facts and evidence.

“It would be gainsaid that length of the sentence or the gravity of the original crime can’t be the sole basis for refusing premature release. Any assessment regarding predilection to commit crime upon release must be based on antecedents as well as conduct of the prisoner while in jail, and not merely on his age or apprehensions of the victims and witnesses.”

In the present case, considering how the petitioners have served nearly two decades of incarnation and have thus suffered the consequences of their actions.

For the reasons stated above, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of with a direction that petitioners be released on Probation in terms of Section 2 of the Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 within a period of 2 weeks.

Read the judgment here;

-ILNS

The Bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta on Friday said that a habeas corpus petition will not lie where a life prisoner is challenging his ineligibility to apply for premature release.

The apex court was posed with the question — whether a writ court can be approached to seek premature release of a prisoner.

In Madras High Court, a petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner’s son/the detenue H.Abuthahir, confined at Coimbatore Central Prison (Life Convict No.4346) from the prison and directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as an eligible life convict prisoner for premature release by G.O.(Ms).No.64, Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018. The Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court as refusal of remission on the ground of apprehension of harm to the prisoner outside jail was held unreasonable. In such cases, high court recommended that prisoners be released but in doing so be informed of the possibility of harm to them.

This judgement came to be challenged by the Home Department in the Supreme Court.

Counsel for the prisoner stated that it is open to the court to issue any writ to an aggrieved party in such a case. If there is discrimination then liberty of detinue is deprived and is violation of Article 14 & Article 21 of Constitution.

Justice Deepak Gupta said, “Grant of remission is a privilege, it is not a right,” thus indicating that a prisoner cannot demand premature release as a matter of right. It depends upon the prison board to decide who gets remission and who doesn’t.

The Court was also posed with the issue whether any State without the consent of the President of India can form a scheme which is in variation or violative of the provision of Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and provide for release of prisoners who have been directed to undergo life imprisonment in cases where the offence is also punishable by death prior to their serving 14 years of incarceration.

Section 433A provides that where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.

Justice Nazeer said that though they have filed habeas corpus but it is not treated as habeas corpus but treated as normal petition. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate, appearing for the Home Secretary, Prison while summing up his arguments said that detention is legal and the court cannot order a release in case of lawful detention, as it is an executive function, not a judicial one.