In Re : Contagion Of Covid 19 Virus In Prisons vs .

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 884

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, CJI., L. Nageswara Rao, A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
In Re : Contagion Of Covid 19 Virus In Prisons - Appellant
Versus
. - Respondent
Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020
Decided On : 16072021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Satish Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate, Mr. Chirag Tuteja, Advocate, Mr. Salim Ansari, Advocate, Mr. Shailendra Singh, Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Bhan, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Nachiketa Vajpayee, Advocate, Ms. Divyangna Malik, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Bhati, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate, Ms. Muskaan Garg, Advocate, Mr. Sumit, Advocate, Ms. Prerna Robin, Advocate, Ms. Shashi Priya, Advocate, Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, Mr. Atul Babasaheb Dakh, Advocate and Ms. Madhavi Ayyapan, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Vinay Arora, Advocate, Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Advocate, Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Sarthak Raizada, Advocate, Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate, Mrs. Bhaswati Singh, Advocate, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate, Mr. G. N. Reddy, Advocate, Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Advocate, Mr. S. Thananjayan, Advocate, Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate, Mr. Aravindh S., Advocate, Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, Advocate, Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate, Mr. Shibashish Misra, Advocate, Mr. P.H. Parekh, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sameer Parekh, Advocate, Mr. Kshatrashal Raj, Advocate, Ms. Tanya Chaudhry, Advocate, Ms. Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Advocate, Ms. Nitika Pandey, Advocate, For M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocate, Mr. M.K. Mondal, Advocate, Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Advocate, Ms. G. Indira, Advocate, Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocate, Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Advocate, Mr. P. S. Sudheer, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Advocate, Mr. Geo Joseph, Advocate, Ms. Sneha Kalita, Advocate, Mr. Santosh Kumar I, Advocate, Mr. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Advocate, Mr. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Advocate, Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Dy. AG, MP, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, AG, Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate, Mr. Amrish Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advocate, Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Advocate, Ms. Radhika Gautam, Advocate, Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Advocate, Ms. Eliza Bar, Advocate, Mr. Prasanna S., Advocate, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, AAG, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advocate, Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, Advocate, Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Advocate, Mr. Vishal Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Advocate, Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Advocate, For M/s. PLR Chambers And Co., Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Advocate, Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Advocate, Mr. Karun Sharma, Advocate, Mr. G. Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Jishnu M.L., Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Advocate, Ms. Beena Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate, Ms. Astha Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Sharan Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Mahesh Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Siddhartha Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar, AG, Meghalaya, Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Advocate, Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Advocate, Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Advocate, Mr. Upendra Mishra, Advocate, Mr. T.K. Nayak, Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Goel, Advocate, Ms. Naveen Goel, Advocate, Mr. Vinay Mathew, Advocate, Mr. Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Advocate, Mr. Niteen Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Arun R. Pednekar, Advocate, Ms. Mukti Chowdhary, Advocate, Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Advocate, For M/s.Arputham Aruna And Co, Advocate, Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Advocate, Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Advocate, Mr. Nishant Verma, Advocate, Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate, Ms. Ritu Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Harini Raghupathy, Advocate, Mr. Satya Mitra, Advocate, Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Advocate, Mr. Prashant Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. P. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate, For M/s.Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Advocate, Mr. Soumya Chakraborty, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Advocate, Ms. Shashi Pathak, Advocate, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Advocate, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Advocate, Mr. Kabir Shankar Bose, Advocate, Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, Advocate, Mr. Milind Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Binu Tamta, Advocate, Mr. Dhriv Tamta, Advocate, Mr. Chetan Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Mahajan, AAG, HP, Mr. Vidit Anand, Advocate, Mr, Anil Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Amarnath Singh, Advocate, Mr. Surinder Singh Manak, Advocate, Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocate, Mr. Sunando Raha, Advocate, Mr. S.C. Verma, AG, Chhattisgarh, Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Advocate, Ms. Simran Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, Advocate, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Advocate, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Advocate, Mr. Manan Bansal, Advocate, Ms. Shweta Mohta, Advocate, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Advocate, Ms. Taruna A. Prasad, Advocate, Mr. G.M. Kawoosa, Advocate, Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Advocate, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Advocate, Ms. Manya Hasija, Advocate, Mr. Sahil Chandra, Advocate, Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Advocate, Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocate, Ms. Shrutika Garg, Advocate, Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, Advocate, Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Advocate, Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Advocate, Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate, Mr. Amitabh Sinha, Advocate, Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Advocate, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Advocate, Mr. Saaketh Kasibhatia, Advocate and Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate, for the Respondent

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Power of High Courts to issue certain writ – Court has not been made aware about criteria being adopted by different State Governments/Union Territories while releasing prisoners from jails, on basis of recommendations of different High Powered Committees constituted for purpose – Whether in norms adopted, they have taken into consideration age of convicts and/or comorbidities suffered, if any, at time of recommending release of prisoners from jails – Held, Court find that various applications for intervention/impleadment have been filed by different parties/individuals in these matters – During course of hearing, learned Amicus Curiae submits that he is not aware of prayer made in different intervention/impleadment applications filed by different parties/individuals in these matters and as such, he is unable to assist Court with respect to same – In view of above, courtdirect all concerned applicants to give a copy of those applications to learned Amicus Curiae as well as to learned Solicitor General at earliest – These applications will be taken up for consideration after some time – Ordered Accordingly.

ORDER

The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1/2020:

2. Pursuant to Orders dated 752021 and 162021 passed by this Court, these matters came up today for further consideration.

3. Heard Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India and other learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. This Court has not been made aware about the criteria being adopted by the different State Governments/Union Territories while releasing the prisoners from jails, on the basis of recommendations of different High Powered Committees constituted for the purpose.

5. Under the circumstances, we deem it fit to direct the Member Secretary of the National Legal Services Authority as well as the Member Secretaries of respective States Legal Services Authorities to collect information from the different States/Union Territories and submit a report to this Court on or before 2272021, stating clearly the norms/criteria adopted by the different State Governments/Union Territories, i.e., whether in the norms adopted, they have taken into consideration the age of the convicts and/or comorbidities suffered, if any, at the time of recommending the release of the prisoners from jails. The Report should also indicate whether the convicts whose appeals are pending consideration, have also been considered for release, pursuant to the directions passed by this Court from time to time. The States/Union Territories concerned in these matters shall also clarify the above stated aspects in their respective affidavits.

6. The Member Secretary, National Legal Services Authority and States Legal Services Authorities are directed to furnish copies of the Report to the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Solicitor General respectively.

7. So far as those prisoners who have already been released on bail from the prison by virtue of Orders passed by this Court from time to time and on the basis of recommendations of High Powered Committees constituted for the purpose are concerned, they shall not be asked to surrender to the prison, until further orders.

8. We find that various applications for intervention/impleadment have been filed by different parties/individuals in these matters.

9. During the course of hearing, learned Amicus Curiae submits that he is not aware of the prayer made in the different intervention/impleadment applications filed by the different parties/individuals in these matters and as such, he is unable to assist the Court with respect to the same.

10. In view of the above, we direct all concerned applicants to give a copy of those applications to learned Amicus Curiae as well as to the learned Solicitor General at the earliest.

11. These applications will be taken up for consideration after some time.

12. List the matter on 382021.

W.P.(Crl.) No. 235/2021:

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

The Registry is directed to list this Writ Petition before an appropriate Bench.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 884

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAN.V. Ramana, CJI., L. Nageswara Rao, A.S. Bopanna, JJ.In Re : Contagion Of Covid 19 Virus In Prisons - AppellantVersus. - RespondentSuo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020Decided On : 16­07­2021

Related Judgments

In Re : Contagion Of Covid 19 Virus In Prisons VS . - 2021 Supreme(SC) 884

IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS VS . - 2021 Supreme(SC) 278

IN REFERENCE (SUO MOTU) VS STATE OF M. P. - 2021 Supreme(MP) 816

IN REFERENCE (SUO MOTU) VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2021 Supreme(MP) 766

Suo Moto PIL: In the matter of Premature Release of the Convicts VS Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Uttarakhand - 2024 Supreme(UK) 635

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 4170

RK Gossain VS Government Of NCT Of Delhi - 2021 Supreme(Del) 2468

R.K. Gossain vs Government of NCT of Delhi

Annappa Mariyappa Hiremani, S/o. Mariyappa Hiremani vs State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Law - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 2910

Omkarmurthy S/o Nagarajappa VS State of Karnataka - 2023 Supreme(Kar) 153

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, CJI., L. Nageswara Rao, A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
In Re : Contagion Of Covid 19 Virus In Prisons - Appellant
Versus
. - Respondent
Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020
Decided On : 16072021