IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
V.M. DESHPANDE, AMIT BORKAR, JJ.
Hanuman Anandrao Pendam – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary Home Department and Others – Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No.537 of 2021
Decided on : 16-03-2022
The Nagpur Central Jail Superintendent, Anupkumar Kumre, was found guilty of contempt of court for selectively applying a binding precedent of the Bombay High Court regarding the release of prisoners on emergency parole during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court held that Kumre's actions violated the fundamental rights of prisoners and subverted the rule of law. Despite being aware of the precedent, Kumre released ineligible prisoners while denying parole to eligible ones. The court rejected Kumre's apology, finding it insincere and motivated by a desire to avoid punishment. It imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000 and a seven-day simple imprisonment sentence, suspended for 10 weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The Nagpur Central Jail Superintendent, Anupkumar Kumre, was accused of selectively applying a binding precedent of the Bombay High Court regarding the release of prisoners on emergency parole during the COVID-19 pandemic. Kumre released ineligible prisoners while denying parole to eligible ones, violating the fundamental rights of prisoners and subverting the rule of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found Kumre guilty of contempt of court for selectively applying the binding precedent of the Bombay High Court regarding the release of prisoners on emergency parole during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court held that Kumre's actions violated the fundamental rights of prisoners and subverted the rule of law.
Issues: 1. Whether Kumre selectively applied the binding precedent of the Bombay High Court regarding the release of prisoners on emergency parole during the COVID-19 pandemic? 2. Whether Kumre's actions violated the fundamental rights of prisoners and subverted the rule of law?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Kumre's actions violated the fundamental rights of prisoners and subverted the rule of law. The court found that Kumre was aware of the binding precedent of the Bombay High Court but chose to ignore it in certain cases, resulting in the denial of parole to eligible prisoners and the release of ineligible prisoners. The court also found that Kumre's actions were motivated by a desire to avoid punishment, as evidenced by his insincere apology.
Final Decision: The court found Kumre guilty of contempt of court and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000 and a seven-day simple imprisonment sentence, suspended for 10 weeks.
JUDGMENT :
Amit Borkar, J.
1. Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. This is a suo motu contempt initiated in exercise of the power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India against a Contemnor Shri Anupkumar M. Kumre, Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur, mainly on the grounds that the Contemnor selectively chose to apply the binding precedent of this Court as regards the release of prisoners in Central Prison, Nagpur on emergency parole in wilful disobedience of the judgment of this Court in the case of Milind Ashok Patil and Ors vs State of Maharashtra, in Criminal Writ Petition-ASDB-LD-VC No.65/2020 thereby refusing to release 35 prisoners on emergency parole though eligible and granting emergency parole to 6 prisoners though ineligible. Furthermore, in addition to the aforesaid grounds, notice was issued for making misleading statements made in the affidavit filed before this Court, though cautioned twice earlier by two Co-ordinate Benches of this Court.
4. The facts which necessitated initiation of sou-motu contempt proceedings, which are relevant for adjudication of the present proceedings briefly are as under:-
The State of Maharashtra on 08/05/2020 introduced Rule 19(1)(c) in the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2020 (for short “the said Rules”) providing for the grant of emergency parole in view of the emergent Corona pandemic. One of the prisoners, namely Hanuman Anandrao Pendam, filed this Writ Petition seeking directions against the Contemnor for his release on emergency parole. In pursuance of the notice, the Contemnor filed a reply stating that the Petitioner did not surrender on his own and was required to be arrested.
5. On 03/08/2021, this Court issued notice to the Contemnor and others, pursuance of which the Contemnor filed affidavit-in-reply on 11/08/2021 justifying the rejection of the emergency parole leave of the Petitioner stating that he was absconding for 14 days after expiry of the period of furlough leave of 21 days. However, curiously, the Contemnor filed another affidavit dated 14/09/2021, taking a U-turn and stating that the Petitioner had reported on time on 16/02/2021. However, the Petitioner was directed to go to the Government Hospital for undergoing a Covid test.
6. On 27/09/2021, when this Court was about to dismiss the present Petition, the Advocate for Petitioner submitted that the Contemnor had released similar prisoners on parole though they were ineligible, but she was not having copies of such orders. She placed on record one such copy of the order. We, therefore, appointed Mr. F.T. Mirza as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court, as the Advocate appearing for Petitioner is a new entrant in the Bar. We also directed the Contemnor to file his personal affidavit giving all the details in respect of the orders passed after the policy of emergency Corona parole was introduced in a tabular form giving the details of prisoners/convicts who were released on emergency parole though surrendered late on their own as well as those brought in jail be using Police machinery and entire data in respect of the cases where he had released prisoners and rejected emergency parole under the Rules.
7. In pursuance of the said order, the Contemnor filed his affidavit dated 28/09/2021, wherein he stated that 90 prisoners were denied emergency parole as they were found ineligible as per the Rules. The Contemnor, along with the said affidavit, filed five lists which are as under:-
(ii) List of six prisoners who reported late;
(iii) List of six prisoners who surrendered on their own and were released on parole;
(iv) List of 63 prisoners released on parole; and
(v) List of 90 prisoners who were refused parole.
8. At this stage, it needs to be noted that Prisoner Suresh Bhoyer’s name is mentioned in the two lists. One list shows that he reported late by seven days and another list shows that he reported on time.
9. On 30/09/2
Bharadakanta Mishra vs. Bhimsen Dixit reported in (1973) 1 SCC 446
Bishnu Ram Borah vs. Parag Saikia reported in (1984) 2 SCC 488
Kauslaya Devi Bogra vs. Land Acquisition Officer
L.D. Jaikwal vs. Stateof U.P. reported in (1984) 3 SCC 405
Legrand (India) PrivateLtd. vs. Union of India and others reported in 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 146
M. Padmanabha Setty vs. K.P. Papiah Setty
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Priya Gupta vs. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare reported in (2013) 11 SCC 404
Ram Kishan vs. Tarun Bajaj and others reported in (2014) 16 SCC 204
Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 8 SCC 470
Sunil Batra (II) vs Delhi Administration reported in (1980) 3 SCC 488
Smt. Poonam Lata vs M.L. Wadhawan & Ors reported in (1987) 3 SCC 347
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Ashok Khot and Anr reported in (2006) 5 SCC 1
T.C. Gupta vs. Bimal Kumar Dutta and others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 446
Vishram SinghRaghubanshi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 7 SCC 776
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.