High Power Committee Categorization of Prisoners for Interim Bail is Not Arbitrary: Supreme Court

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

A Full Bench held that the prisoners cannot be granted a benefit in unprecedented circumstances. A release of all categories of prisoners based on the principle of equality irrespective of categorization will not achieve social order. There is a need to make classifications depending on the severity of the crime among other factors.

Brief facts of the case

The Supreme Court ordered the constitution of a High Powered Committee (“HPC”) in each state for deliberating on the decongestion of the prisons. In the wake of the pandemic, this committee was designated to determine which classes of prisoners were to be granted interim bail. The criteria were to be based on their term of imprisonment, among other factors.

The HPC in Maharashtra classified the prisoners into three categories. These are prisoners convicted for 7 years or less and prisoners sentenced for more than 7 years based on the IPC provisions. The third category of prisoners include persons convicted for serious economic offences/bank scams and offences under Special Acts (such as MCOC, PMLA, MPID, NDPS, UAPA, etc.) 

This categorization emphasized the ‘nature of the offence’ and the ‘severity of offence’ for grant of interim bail.

The Appellants find the categorization of the HPC discriminatory. They also point at the unreasonableness in imposing a condition of “earlier release of the convicted person” as a factor for bail under the category of prisoners with a sentence of more than 7 years.

The High Court of Bombay refused to interfere with the orders of the HPC. Hence the present appeal.

Arguments Advanced

The categorization made by the HPC is not to be treated as mandatory orders. This is because the committee was constituted for a temporary role in the situation of the pandemic. Also, prisoners convicted for life imprisonment should be released without insisting on past releases as furlough or parole.

Court’s Observations

The Bench upheld the categorization set by the HPC. It also stated that under Article 14 of the Constitution, equality before the law or the equal protection of laws does not mean an abstract symmetry in the treatment of persons. Rather, a reasonable classification is permitted to be undertaken for justice.

Further, the right to claim such interim bail arises due to the unprecedented circumstance of the pandemic. The present provision for an interim bail is not a statutory right, but a human right to safeguard the health of the prison inmates. This option of applying for an interim bail is only for decongestion and to prevent the spread of the virus in the premises of the prison. Hence, the categories of prisoners will be different in each State or Union Territory. It depends on the occupancy in the prison, the spread of the virus, the infrastructure available, and the need to release a certain number of prisoners for decongestion.

The HPC is headed by a High Court judge along with other officials having enough experience. Hence the categorization of prisoners is based on reasonable grounds.

The intention of the Supreme Court through such an order was not to release every prisoner irrespective of the offence committed. The Bench upheld the third category of classification made by the HPC. Special legislation provides for more restrictions on grant of bail and also to those under the CrPc. 

It cannot be considered as unreasonable as the Court granting bail would also consider the provisions of the Special legislations if not for the notification for decongestion. This exclusion made has a reasonable basis and cannot be termed arbitrary under Article 14.

In paragraph 12 of the judgment, the Court explained the reasonability of the method used by the HPC for the grant of interim bail. The present grant of bail is only to reduce overcrowding and thus is an extra benefit. No other legal right has been denied as it is only the benefit of release owing to COVID-19 that has been restricted. 

Court’s Decision

The HPC has excluded certain categories of prisoners due to the seriousness of their offences affecting the society. Even though their length of imprisonment is lesser, the nature of the offence can restrict them from this extra benefit.

Such prisoners cannot get bail in the cover of the pandemic when they are otherwise not entitled by the law, on the ground of equal treatment. Hence, the criteria formed by the HPC do not need any interference.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can 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

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -