1995 (9) TMI 371 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the special remission granted to prisoners belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, excluding other prisoners, violated the right to equality.
2. Whether the provision for special remission based on caste and race was justifiable under Article 15(4).
3. Whether the High Court had the authority to expand the reach of the special remission to benefit prisoners not belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
4. Whether the respondents who benefited from the High Court's order should be required to serve out their original terms if the judgment is set aside.

Analysis:
1. The High Court allowed writ petitions challenging the restriction of special remission to prisoners of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and female prisoners only. The contention was that this selective remission violated the right to equality. The State argued that the special remission was justified for Scheduled Castes and Tribes as a separate class. The High Court held that the discrimination in granting special remission was unjustified, as all prisoners, regardless of caste, stood on the same footing under the law.

2. The High Court rejected the State's defense under Article 15(4) for providing special remission based on caste and race. It determined that the special remission did not contribute to the advancement of Scheduled Castes and Tribes. Granting remission based on caste and race was deemed discriminatory. The Court directed the State to provide the same remissions to all prisoners, irrespective of caste or tribe, as it had granted to Scheduled Castes and Tribes prisoners.

3. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's view that providing special remission solely to Scheduled Castes and Tribes prisoners was unjustified. However, the Court diverged on the remedy. It held that the High Court had overstepped its authority by extending the benefit of the special remission to prisoners not belonging to Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The High Court could not broaden the scope of the remission beyond its intended restriction by the State.

4. Despite setting aside the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court decided that the respondents who had benefited from the order should not be required to return to jail. Those who had obtained the benefits of the High Court's order were allowed to retain them, and they were not obligated to serve out their original terms. The appeals were allowed, the judgments and orders were overturned, and no costs were awarded.