2003(3) Crimes 260 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju & H.K. Sema, JJ
Sanaboina Satyanarayana —Appellant
versus
Government of A.P. & Ors. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1227 of 2002
Decided on 29-7-2003

Important Point
Classification of convicts for crimes against woman to keep away from benefits of remission under the Govt. order cannot be said violative of any reasonable principle or concept of law.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950—Article 161 —Govt. order remitting unexpired residue of sentence of various categories of prisoners in the State—Remission order was subject to conditions and was not available for convicts who had committed crime against women—Benefit denied to appellant who had been convicted under Sections 302, 498-A and 201 IPC—High Court rejected the plea that discrimination suffered vice of ­Article 14 of Constitution of India—Appeal—Issue in question being one pertaining purely to area policy and political philosophy of the State, Courts except in rarest of rare cases could not be called upon to adjudicate on desirability or wisdom of such decision—Classification in that regard to keep away convicts for crimes against women from benefits of remission could not be said violative of any reasonable principle or concept of law.

       Held : Clause (iv) of paragraph 3 of the Government order dated 25-1-2000 specifically stated that prisoners convicted for “crimes against women such as Section 376 and 354 IPC while being sentenced to imprisonment for life”, will fall outside the scheme for remission granted under the said G.O. When the clause noticed above, in the later portion referred to two of the provisions of the IPC, after the words “such as” it was more by way of illustration of the excepted category of offences relating to crimes against women in general and not with an intention to be exhaustive of the same and to merely confine the words “crimes against women” to only those convicts for crime against women under Section 376 and 354 IPC. Acceptance of any such plea would amount to not only doing violence to the language of the order of the Governor but also rewriting the same and that too in utter disregard of the very intention, a laudable one in larger and greater public interest. When keeping into consideration the societal needs and dictates of the gruesome events happening in large scale all over the State, a conscious decision has been taken by the policy maker to keep out a class of anti socials from availing the benefit of the remission, courts cannot by stretching the language confer an undeserved benefit upon the class of convicts, who, in our view also have not only been designedly but deservingly were kept out of the scheme for according the benefit of remission. The plea of discrimination needs mention only to be rejected. The remission proposed in commemoration of the 50 years of Indian Republic itself is a boon and concession to which no one had any vested right. As to what classes of persons or category of offenders to whom the remission has to be extended is a matter of policy particularly when it is also a constituent power conferred upon the constitutional functionary and Head of the State Government, larger area of ­latitude is to be conceded in favour of such authority to decide upon the frame and ­limits of its exercise under Article 161 itself. The Constitution of India itself has chosen to countenance the claims of women for favourable treatment and acknowledge the fact that sex is a sound classification. The issue in question being one pertaining purely to the area policy and political philosophy of the State, the Courts except in the rarest of rare cases, cannot be called upon to adjudicate on the desirability or wisdom of such decisions. It is no exaggeration to place on record that instances of violence against women and children particularly female, such as rape, dowry deaths, domestic violence, bride burning, molestation, brazen, ill treatment of ­horror, vulgarity and indecency are not only rampant but on phenomenal increase casting a shadow of shame on the society, the culture and Governance in this country and it seems that cruelty to women and problems of battered wives have become ironically ­almost a world wide phenomenon. Such a situation deserves a special treatment in the hands of the State. Consequently, the classification in this regard to keep away convicts for crimes against women from the benefits of remission under the order dated 25-1-2000 cannot be said to violate any reasonable principle or concept of law so as to call for its condemnation in exercise of the powers of judicial review. The classification therefore sounds just, reasonable, proper and ­necessitated in the larger interests of society and greater public interest and consequently cannot by any stretch of imagination be branded to be invidious to attract the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 8 & 9)

       Result : Appeal dismissed.