9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1208 - SC - Indian LawsWhether a writ of habeas corpus would lie, for securing release of a person who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment imposed by court of competent jurisdiction praying that he be released in terms of some Government orders / Rules providing for pre-mature release of prisoners? HELD THAT - The representations made by the detenus had not been decided. The proper course for the Court was to direct that the representations of the detenus be decided within a short period. Keeping in view the fact that the Scheme envisages a report of the Probation Officer, a reference by the District Level Committee and thereafter the matter has to be placed before the concerned Range Deputy Inspector General and before Regional Probation Officer and thereafter before the State Level Committee, we feel that it would be reasonable to grant 2-3 months depending on the time when the representation was filed for the State to deal with them. When the petition is filed just a few days before filing the representation then the Court may be justified in granting up to 3 months time to consider the same. However, if the representation is filed a couple of months earlier and the report of the Probation Officer is already available then lesser time can be granted. No hard and fast timelines can be laid down but the Court must give reasonable time to the State to decide the representation. We are clearly of the view that the Court itself cannot examine the eligibility of the detenu to be granted release under the Scheme at this stage. The High Court erred in directing the release of the detenu forthwith without first directing the competent authority to take a decision in the matter. Merely because a practice has been followed in the Madras High Court of issuing such type of writs for a long time cannot clothe these orders with legality if the orders are without jurisdiction. Past practice or the fact that the State has not challenged some of the orders is not sufficient to hold that these orders are legal. The authorities must pass a reasoned order in case they refuse to grant benefit under the Scheme. Once a reasoned order is passed then obviously the detenu has a right to challenge that order but that again would not be a writ of habeas corpus but would be more in the nature of a writ of certiorari. In such cases, where reasoned orders have been passed the High Court may call for the record of the case, examine the same and after examining the same in the context of the parameters of the Scheme decide whether the order rejecting the prayer for premature release is justified or not. If it comes to the conclusion that the order is not a proper order then obviously it can direct the release of the prisoner by giving him the benefit of the Scheme. The detenus are ordered to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case - Appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a writ of habeas corpus would lie for securing the release of a person undergoing a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction, praying for release in terms of some Government orders/Rules providing for premature release of prisoners. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether a writ of habeas corpus would lie for securing the release of a person undergoing a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction, praying for release in terms of some Government orders/Rules providing for premature release of prisoners. Background and Scheme: The Governor of Tamil Nadu, under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, issued G.O.(Ms.) No.64 dated 01.02.2018, framing guidelines for the premature release of life convicts on the occasion of the Birth Centenary of Shri M.G. Ramachandran. The Scheme constituted State and District level committees to examine cases for premature release based on certain conditions, including satisfactory behavior, safety concerns, and family acceptance. High Court’s Decision: The High Court of Madras allowed writs of habeas corpus, directing the release of detenus whose representations for premature release under G.O.(Ms) No.64 were pending. The High Court held that the detenus could not be denied release based on the Probation Officer's report indicating danger to their lives if released. Supreme Court’s Analysis: The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue writs of habeas corpus in such circumstances. It reiterated that a writ of habeas corpus is available to secure liberty from unlawful detention, whether by the State or private individuals. However, it emphasized that such a writ would not lie where the detention is pursuant to a court order or in accordance with the law. Jurisdiction and Scope: The Court highlighted that habeas corpus is a processual writ to secure liberty from unlawful detention. It is not applicable where a person is detained under a lawful court order. The Court cited various precedents, including Mohd. Ikram v. State of U.P. and Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration, affirming that habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge lawful detention or to seek parole/remission, which are administrative matters. Evaluation of High Court’s Orders: The Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in directing the release of detenus without first directing the competent authority to decide their representations under the Scheme. It noted that the High Court selectively considered parts of the Probation Officer’s report and ignored other relevant factors. Conclusion and Directions: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgments, directing the competent authority to decide the detenus' representations within a reasonable period. It exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to release certain detenus who had shown exemplary behavior and educational achievements during incarceration, while directing the State to reconsider the case of one detenu with additional convictions. Separate Judgments: The Supreme Court provided separate judgments for each detenu, detailing their educational achievements and behavior in jail, ultimately directing their release or reconsideration of their cases. Final Orders: - Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 2020: Detenu ordered to be released forthwith. - Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2020: Detenu ordered to be released forthwith. - Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2020: Detenu ordered to be released forthwith. - Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2020: Detenu ordered to be released forthwith. - Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2020: State directed to consider and decide the representation within 6 weeks. The appeals were disposed of in these terms, and pending applications were also disposed of.
|
