Supreme Court Extends Stay On Premature Release Of Gangster-Turned-Politician Arun Gawli

The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta also extended the stay, granted on April 04, on this challenged judgment

Gawli, convicted under MCOCA and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Shiv Sena leader Kamalakar Jamsandekar, had filed the present writ petition for early release based on the remission policy of 2006, in effect at the time of his conviction in 2012.

Having completed 14 years of actual imprisonment and reaching the age of 65 as well as being certified weak by the medical board, Gawli claimed to have fulfilled the criteria outlined in the 2006 policy. His petition was rejected by the state authorities citing a subsequent modification to the Maharashtra Prisons [Review of Sentences] Rules in 2015, which excluded MCOCA convicts from the remission policy.

The High Court relied on various Supreme Court judgments and highlighted Court that the policy in force at the time of conviction would be applicable unless a subsequent policy is more advantageous to the convict. Challenging the High Court's verdict, the State approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Top Court, Senior advocate Raja Thakre, appearing for Maharashtra, apprised the Court that there are as many as 46 antecedents of Arun Gawli. This included 10 murder cases and 8 extortion cases.

Justice Kant chimed in saying “those 46 must be in his own good days” and asked him whether there are antecedents in the last five years. At this, Thakre submitted that the Gawli has been in jail for the last seventeen years.

Thakre also said that the propensity to commit the crime can be gathered from history. He submitted that Gawli need not be personally present as he gets things done. “He is sitting in his den and from there he operates. The very name in Maharashtra is sufficient when it come to Arun Gawli.”

Thakre also said that as far ia State policy is concerned, MCOCA convicts have to undergo at least 40 years of imprisonment in order to get remission.

Senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, for Gawli, submitted that the medical board has found him infirm. She also said that the revised policy of 2006 had two main considerations i., the age should be beyond 65 years and the convict must be infirm. However, in 2015 policy was changed and it excluded MCOCA convicts from the remission policy.

Relying upon a precedent(Joseph v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 815), she submitted that to exclude anybody totally from remission is unconstitutional. Further, she stressed that given the conviction took place in the year 2012, the 2006 policy will be applicable in the present case. To bolster her case, she said that he had been released by the High Court on 15 occasions on parole and there was no incident.

Moving forward, she submitted that the advisory board has rejected his case on the ground that the 2015 policy excluded MCOCA convicts. However, she reiterated that the policy at the time of conviction will be applicable.

When Ramakrishnan said that the co-accused had been released, Justice Kant remarked: “All of us need to be bit consicious and aware of the facts scenario. After all, everybody is not Arun Gawli.” Even Arun Gawli is no longer Arun Gawli, that is the point., came the reply.

“That old movie Gabbar reminds us 'Gabbar aa jaiyega', that is what they are pleading.,” said Justice Kant. However, Ramakrishnan countered saying that this was not pleaded before the High Court.

Following this, she took the bench through his physical condition saying that he had been admitted thrice to the hospital. Apart from that she highlighted that he has chronic pulmonary disease.

When Thakre countered the same saying that it is because of constant smoking for the last forty years, she said “Maybe. That does not mean that you can leave him to die. He is not on trial for smoking....I cannot assert that that he is going to die tomorrow, that is not the basis of this. It is at age 73, after having spent 15 years in jail and on the basis of the policy (2006)”

Ultimately, the Court passed the aforementioned order and listed the matter for hearing on November 20.

In the impugned judgment, the High Court had highlighted that MCOCA was intentionally excluded from the remission policy of 2006, as the framers were aware of its existence at the time of policy formulation. Moreover, the revised policy of 2015 explicitly excluded MCOCA convicts, indicating a deliberate change in approach, the court opined.

Additionally, the court rebuffed the state's attempt to invoke revised guidelines from 2010, which provide a 40-year of actual imprisonment threshold for organized crime convicts. These guidelines are irrelevant as the 2006 policy specifically catered to elderly and infirm prisoners, creating a separate class for their benefit, the court stated holding that the 2010 guidelines did not apply to Gawli's case.

Thus, the High Court held that Gawli was entitled to the benefits of the 2006 remission policy, directing the respondent authority to issue consequential orders.

Case Details: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs. ARUN GULAB GAWLI., Diary No. - 21924/2024