Bombay High Court Pulls Up Maharashtra Govt Over Failure To Adhere To Policy For Premature Release Of Convicts

The Bombay High Court today pulled up the Maharashtra government for failing to adhere to its own guidelines for providing premature release to prisoners.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande expressed displeasure over the State government flouting its own policy while denying premature release to prisoners, otherwise entitled for the same.

"Time and again this Court and also the Supreme Court has said that the State has to adhere to its guidelines and cannot exercise any prerogative. Yet we are coming across so many matters wherein you are not adhering to your own policy. So let's rest the issue now. Either you (State) adhere to your policy or just do away with it," Justice Dangre orally remarked.

The bench, therefore, ordered the Additional Chief Secretary of the State's Home Department to file an affidavit clarifying the stand of the State.

"Let the highest officer file his personal affidavit. The affidavit should clearly state as to whether the policy will be adhered or not. And this is for the last chance else in future we will not hesitate to impose costs," Justice Dangre observed.

The bench made these observations while dealing with a plea filed by one Papa Rathod, who was convicted in May 2009 for raping his own minor daughter. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

As per the State guidelines, a convict sentenced to serve life imprisonment, in order to become eligible for premature release is usually categorised and his or her life imprisonment is counted as per the number of years prescribed in the said categories of the policy.

Advocate Nitin Gaware Patil appearing for Rathod, submitted before the bench that his client if categorised as per the policy, would be eligible to serve 20 years of imprisonment. He added that as of date his client has already served 15 and a half years in jail.

"The policy provides for 10 years remission. So if my client's remission and time served is added, he has served 25 years which is beyond the 20 years eligibility as per the policy. So he must be given the benefit of premature release," the counsel submitted.

The judges were however irked to note the contention of the State that Rathod cannot be given the said benefit as he isn't eligible to be categorised since he is convicted of a "heinous crime."

The bench pointed out to the State counsel that the policy in question would not be applicable only to convicts under special Acts like the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), or the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). It added that the State could not say it will not categorise a convict only because he is booked in a heinous crime.

The matter has been adjourned for the Additional Chief Secretary to file his affidavit and clarify the State's stand.