'Barring Remission For Convicts Who Murdered Public Servants Discriminatory' : Bihar Govt Defends Premature Release Of Anand Mohan
In a counter affidavit, recently, filed before the Supreme Court, the State of Bihar has defended the early release of former Bihar MP Anand Mohan, convicted in the case for mob lynching of Gopalganj District Magistrate, G. Krishnaiah in 1994. The affidavit was filed pursuant to an order of the Division Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala directing the State Government...
In a counter affidavit, recently, filed before the Supreme Court, the State of Bihar has defended the early release of former Bihar MP Anand Mohan, convicted in the case for mob lynching of Gopalganj District Magistrate, G. Krishnaiah in 1994. The affidavit was filed pursuant to an order of the Division Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala directing the State Government to file its counter affidavit and produce original records of documents which led to the granting of Mohan’s remission.
In 1994, Krishnaiah was killed in an attack by a mob led by Mohan. Mohan was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence. However, he walked out of jail on April 24, 2023, after serving 14 years of imprisonment in view of the remission of sentence granted by the Bihar Government.
As per the remission policy of the State of Bihar, persons who are convicted for murder of public servants on duty were not eligible for premature release until they have completed at least 20 years of sentence. However, this bar was relaxed by the State Government by amending the remission policy in April, 2023, paving the way for the release of Anand Mohan.
Stating the decision of the State Government was taken on the basis of "extraneous considerations", the petitioner argues that the relevant factors such as conduct of the prisoner in the jail, past criminal antecedents have been ignored. It is further argued that the amendment of the state remission policy to facilitate Mohan's release is contrary to public policy and would amount to demoralising public servants. It is argued that the policy which was prevalent at the time of the offence should be applied.
In the affidavit filed by IG Prisons and Correctional Services, Government of Bihar, at the very outset objection has been raised with respect to the maintainability of the writ petition. It submits that there is no breach of fundamental rights of the victims/relatives as the issue of remission is between the State and the convicts. Moreover, it was emphasised upon that the victims/relatives do not have the right to interfere in State’s remission policy framed under statutory or constitutional provisions. While responding to the allegations pertaining to violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the affidavit submits that the victim was not deprived of any rights because there was a change in the remissions policy.
The affidavit points out the trite law that judicial interference in the remission policy of a State is limited and is exercised only in rarest of cases. It notes that Section 432 of the CrPC has granted ample power to the appropriate Government with respect to suspension, remission and commutation upon completion of 14 years of imprisonment. Relying on State of Haryana v. Jagdish, the affidavit argues that any subsequent change in the policy which prejudices convicts will not affect them, but any benefit or relaxation given subsequently would enure to their benefit.
The Bihar Prison Manual, 1925 was framed in exercise of powers under Section 59 of the Prison Act, 1984. The policy framed under the 1984 Prison Act covers premature release. As per the said policy for consideration of release of prisoners convicted on or after 18.12.1978 life imprisonment would mean not less than 20 years with remission and a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment. In 1985, the policy was modified to state that the period of detention undergone before conviction shall be subtracted from the period of life imprisonment (20 years). In 2002, rules were amended whereby the Bihar State Sentence Remission Board was constituted and certain categories of life convicts were not considered eligible for premature release. In 2012 an amendment came into being. Pursuant to the same, the life convicts who were guilty of murder of public servants on duty were not considered eligible for premature release.
The affidavit submits that the change in extant remission policy is pursuant to recents orders passed by the Apex Court in a PIL pertaining to remission and premature release of convicts. The Supreme Court in the said proceedings have prescribed timeline and procedures to be followed while considering individual cases of life convicts. The scheme was directed to be implemented as a pilot project in the States of UP, Bihar and Chhattisgarh. Thus, the orders of the Apex Court led the State to revisit the Bihar Prison Manual 2012.
According to the affidavit, the non-consideration of premature release of life convicts who were guilty of murder of a public servant was not in consonance with the punishment prescribed for murder in the Indian Penal Code. It appears that noting that life convicts guilty of murdering the general public are considered for premature release the State decided to take a positive step to do away with discrimination on the basis of status of the victim.
“The punishment for murder of general public or a public servant is same. On the one hand, the life convict prisoner guilty of murder of general public is considered eligible for premature release and on the other hand, the life convict prisoner guilty of murder of a public servant is not eligible for consideration for premature release. The discrimination on the basis of status of a victim was sought to be removed,” said the government.
It also submits - “amendment to the Bihar Prison Manual pertains to an Act done purely within the exclusive domain of the executive power of the State that may not be challenged in the present proceedings”. In addition it states all enactments and subordinate legislation come with presumption of constitutionality and it's for the individual challenging the same to disclose the ultra vires. However, as per the affidavit, the petitioners have failed to show how the amendment is ultra vires the constitutional scheme.
Finally, the affidavit submits that the remission policy provides for a comprehensive and rigourous process with sufficient checks and balances for the consideration of a case for premature release. It notes the conduct of the convict, their behavior, behavioral pattern, nature of offence, background and physical and mental health. It vouches that the same standard has been followed while considering Mohan’s case for remission. He has written three books during his incarceration and also participated in the work assigned in the jail.
The counter affidavit of the State Government was filed through Advocate-on-Record Manish Kumar. The matter is next listed on 8th August, 2023.
[Case Title: Telugu Umadevi Krishnaiah v. State of Bihar And Ors. WP(Crl) No. 204/2023]