Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. RAJASEKHAR REDDY, J.
Puli Ramadevi and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 21783 of 2018
Decided On : 31-10-2018
PRISONERS - PREMATURE RELEASE - SPECIAL REMISSION - ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA - GUIDELINES - REVIEW POWER - SCOPE - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - LIFE CONVICTS - GRANT OF SPECIAL REMISSION - CONDITIONS - INTERPRETATION OF GOVERNMENT ORDER - COURT'S INTERFERENCE - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, relatives of life convicts, filed writ petitions challenging the non-consideration of their cases for grant of special remission and premature release under the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 8, Home (Paroles) Department, dated 23-01-2018.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Government's guidelines for grant of special remission to life convicts were clear and unambiguous, and that the Standing Committee constituted to review the cases of eligible convicts could not pick and choose cases without reference to the guidelines. The court also held that the review power vested in the Standing Committee was not to lay down fresh conditions or guidelines, but to scrutinise and ensure conformation of the eligibility conditions already laid down by the Government.
Issues: 1. Whether the Standing Committee could reject the cases of life convicts for grant of special remission without giving specific reasons, despite their satisfaction of the eligibility criteria laid down in the Government order? 2. Whether the review power vested in the Standing Committee empowered it to lay down fresh conditions or guidelines for grant of special remission?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Standing Committee could not reject the cases of life convicts for grant of special remission without giving specific reasons, despite their satisfaction of the eligibility criteria laid down in the Government order. The court reasoned that the guidelines issued by the Government were clear and unambiguous, and that the Standing Committee could not pick and choose cases without reference to the guidelines. The court also held that the right accrued to the eligible convicts to be considered for premature release could not be nibbled without objectively examining their case. 2. The court held that the review power vested in the Standing Committee was not to lay down fresh conditions or guidelines for grant of special remission, but to scrutinise and ensure conformation of the eligibility conditions already laid down by the Government. The court reasoned that the Standing Committee could not construe its review power to lay down fresh conditions or guidelines, as this would amount to usurping the Government's power to frame policy.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the Standing Committee to reconsider the cases of the life convicts in accordance with the guidelines laid down in G.O.Ms. No. 8, Home (Paroles) Department, dated 23-01-2018.
ORDER :
1. These writ petitions are filed by the near relatives of the life convicts against whom convictions are recorded and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. To appreciate the lis in the matter, facts in W.P. No. 21783 of 2018 are adverted to as it includes the cause in other cases.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the convicts in question have undergone the sentence of imprisonment for more than 10 years and they are entitled for grant of special remission in the light of the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 8, Home (Paroles) Department, dated 23-01-2018, but the cases of the convicts, whose release is being sought by the petitioners, have not been considered, reasons not being disclosed, for grant of special remission and their release from jails. Hence, these writ petitions.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home. Perused the record produced in the matter.
4. It is canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Government vide G.O.Ms. No. 8, Home (Paroles) Department, dated 23-01-2018, devised guidelines for grant of special remission to the life convict prisoners on the occasion of the Republic day, 2018; for that purpose an internal Scrutiny Committee was constituted which scrutinised the list of life convict prisoners and submitted a list of 149 life convict prisoners eligible for grant of special remission to the Standing Committee constituted in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 8, Home (Paroles) Department, dated 23-01-2018, but the Standing Committee could recommend for grant of special remission only to 49 life convict prisoners as against the 149 life convict prisoners forwarded by the internal Scrutiny Committee. It is strenuously contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that Clause 7 of the said GO, stipulated the eligibility criteria for the premature release of life convicts by grant of special remission and all the life convicts prisoners whose cases were recommended by the internal Scrutiny Committee fulfilled the eligibility criteria, but their cases were not considered without there being any objective rational except assigning societal interest. It is also contended that none of the life convicts fall under Clause 8 of the said GO, for not being considered for grant of special remission, that grant of special remission is not a matter of right, but the convicts before this Court, through their representatives, were singled out and no compelling reasons are assigned for not considering their cases though the internal Scrutiny Committee considered them to be eligible for grant of special remission on the occasion of Republic day, 2018.
5. Per contra, adverting to the counter averments made in the case by the 3rd respondent, learned Government Pleader for Home submits that the respondent-Standing Committee reviewed the cases of 149 life convicts prisoners in accordance with the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms No. 8, dated 23-01-2018 and recommended for release of 49 life convict prisoners and deferred the remaining 100 life convict prisoners having regard to various factors viz. age of the prisoners, gruesomeness of the modus operandi adopted by them in committing the crime, mitigating social factors and the nature of offences in which the life convicts were involved. It is also stated that premature release of the life convicts is not a matter of right and it is only a concession being extended to them by the State as part of the reformation and transformation of its subjects. It is also stated that the cases of the life convicts not considered this time will be reviewed again along with the list of other life convicts to be furnished by the Department. That the writ petitions are merit less and liable to be dismissed.
6. It is to be seen that the Government vide G.O.Ms. No. 8, dated 23-01-2018 has taken a decision, subject to review of cases and subject to certain conditions, to grant special remission to life convicts and for t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
