Bombay HC Dismisses Petition to Quash to Categorize Prisoners for Temporary Release

Must Read

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Follow us

PIL filed in Bombay High Court to quash the decision of the High Powered Committee regarding the classification of prisoners. The court dismisses the petition and holds that the classification was in consonance with Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Brief Facts of the Case 

A High Powered Commission (HPC) was constituted by a Supreme Court order dated 25th March 2020. This was done in light of the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure maximum possible distancing in the prisons. On 25th March 2020, the HPC passed a decision to categorize the prisoners to determine their eligibility for temporary release. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid decision in the present PIL alleging it as unconstitutional. The petitioners pray for the quashing of the decision of the HPC to the extent of Clauses (iii), (iv), and (v).

Petitioner’s Submissions

The petitioner submits that the HPC has exceeded its jurisdiction and the classification made is not reasonable classification. According to the petitioner, it fails to satisfy two conditions, 1) the classification must be based on an intelligible differentia; 2) there must be a rational explanation for the classification and the object it seeks to achieve. Therefore, the decision by the HPC is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner further submits that the HPC was constituted to ensure maximum distance in the prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic. He submits that categorizing prisoners or under-trials for temporary release due to the pandemic is not reasonable classification. According to him, there is no nexus between the basis of classification and the object for which the HPC was constituted.

According to the petitioner, the requirement that prisoners should have been released on two occasions earlier either on parole or furlough for being eligible for temporary release is causing hardships. This will impact prisoners who have never been released twice but are otherwise eligible.

Respondent’s Submissions

The respondent denies the submissions made by the petitioner. He contends that the decision passed by the HPC is not arbitrary. The respondent states that the Supreme Court had previously clarified that the States/Union Territories (UTs) are not required to release the prisoners compulsorily. The intention behind the Supreme Court order was merely to ensure that the States/UTs assess the situation in their respective prisons and maintain maximum distance possible in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. According to him, the SC had given the necessary power to the HPC to determine the category of prisoners to be released. The respondent submits that since the HPC has not transgressed the prisoners’ rights, the PIL must be dismissed.

Court’s Observation

The Court observes that in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, various precautionary measures have been taken by experts that include physical distancing. In light of this, the SC passed certain directions to ensure distancing in the prisons. In its order, the SC specifically directed that the HPC has the power to determine a category of prisoners eligible for temporary release. This could be done based on the nature of the offense, the number of years to which the prisoner has been sentenced, the severity of the offense, and any other relevant factor that may be appropriate. In this light, the contention of the petitioner that the HPC exceeded its jurisdiction is baseless.

The Court relies on SC’s decision in West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar and observes that equality under Article 14 doesn’t mean that every law must have universal application. It means that the law must be equally applied to equals. The law of equality doesn’t take away the power of the state to make classifications based on rational distinctions. Therefore, the classification made by the HPC is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

To resolve the last contention put forth by the petitioner, the court relied on Milind S.Patil & Ors. v. The state of Maharashtra. The court observed that the decision passed in the aforesaid judgment regarding the release of prisoners on parole/furlough shall apply in the present case. Therefore, the prisons must release prisoners who haven’t been released on two occasions before if they otherwise meet the criteria for temporary release. Further, the court left it open to the authorities to impose suitable conditions for the release of convicts who had only been released once or never before.

Court’s Decision

Justice Jamdar wrote the judgment whereas Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta gave a concurring judgment. After examining the contentions of the parties, recommendations, and directions of the HPC and the Supreme Court, the Bombay HC held that the decision of the HPC hadn’t put bars on the Courts for considering regular bail applications. The court directed that the prisons are obliged to release prisoners who haven’t been released on parole or furlough twice before if they meet the other relevant criteria for temporary release. The court held that the HPC had not violated Article 14 of the Constitution. In contrast, the HPC has balanced the rights of the prisoners to maintain maximum possible social distancing to limit the spread of Covid-19 in the prisons. In light of the above, the Bombay HC dismissed the PIL after granting limited relief to the petitioners.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -