JUDGMENT :

Madhav J. Jamdar, J.

1. The petitioner No. 1 claims to be an alliance of progressive people's organizations and movements and inter alia claims to stand against the infringement of human rights, civil liberties communalism, casteism, untouchability, corruption and discrimination of all kinds. However, the petitioner No. 1 is not registered body. The petitioner No. 2 is the national convener of the petitioner No. 1 and a social Worker. The petitioner No. 3 is also a social activist. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the citizens of India.

2. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking quashing of the decision of the High Powered Committee (hereafter "the HPC", for short) dated 25th March, 2020 to the extent of Clauses (iii), (iv) and (vii) of paragraph 8, decision/minutes of the HPC meeting dated 11th May, 2020 excluding certain categories of offences provided in paragraph 5(i) and 5(ii) for the purpose of grant of interim bail and corrigendum dated 18th May, 2020 of the minutes of meeting of the HPC dated 11th May, 2020 to the extent of clarification that the class and/or category of cases determined by the HPC for temporary release be not read as a direction made by it for mandatory release of the prisoners falling in that category or class and a further clarification that case of every prisoner be considered on case to case basis for deciding the temporary release of such prisoner. In the PIL petition, a further relief has been sought seeking direction to the respondents to release the prisoners convicted with life imprisonment without insisting that they should have been released in the past at least twice, either on furlough or parole.

3. We have heard Mr. S.B. Talekar, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Deepak Thakare, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

4. Mr. S.B. Talekar pointed out the orders dated 23rd March, 2020 and 13th April, 2020 passed by the Supreme Court in suo motu Writ Petition (C) No. 1 of 2020 (In Re: Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons) and connected matters, minutes of the HPC dated 25th March, 2020 and 11th May, 2020 and corrigendum dated 18th May, 2020 to the minutes of the meeting of HPC dated 11th May, 2020. It is the contention of Mr. Talekar that the HPC has exceeded its jurisdiction and the classification made by the HPC is not reasonable classification. He submitted that the classification which the HPC has made fails to satisfy two conditions viz. the classification is required to be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others who are left out of the group, and that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved; therefore, it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the HPC was constituted by an order dated 23rd March, 2020 of the Supreme Court for the purpose of ensuring maximum possible distancing among the prisoners including the under-trials. Thus, he submitted that excluding certain categories of prisoners or under-trials for emergency release in view of the pandemic caused by COVID-19, is not reasonable classification as there is no nexus between the basis of classification and the object for which the HPC was constituted. Mr. Talekar further submitted that only convicts who are likely to abscond or having antecedents may not be released. Mr. Talekar further submitted that Clause 8(iii) of the HPC's minutes of meeting dated 25th March, 2020 requiring that the prisoners should have been released on two occasions earlier either on parole or furlough for the purpose of getting benefit of emergency parole is causing hardship, as there are several convicted prisoners who are otherwise entitled for emergency release but are deprived of the same in view of the said requirement. He relied on the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Writ Petition-ASDB-LD-VC No. 65 of 2020 (Milind S. Patil & Or