Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 12947
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, A, C, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
GAUTAM KUMAR LAHA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-5698/2024
Mr. Praveen Agrawal, Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Singh, Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, Ms. Stanzin Uron, Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, Mr. Apoorv Kurup, CGSC, Mr. Akhil Hasija, Mr. Vinay Yadav, Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Santosh Kr. Tripathi, Ms. Prashansha Sharma, Mr. Kartik Sharma, Ms. Beenashaw Soni, Ms. Mansi Jain, Ms. Ann Joseph
The court ruled that issues regarding undertrial prisoners are already under consideration in a pending Supreme Court case, rendering the current petition unnecessary.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 20, 21, and 226 - Public Interest Litigation seeking guidelines for release of undertrial prisoners - The court emphasized the need for a structured approach to address overcrowding in prisons and the rights of undertrial prisoners. (Paras 2, 12)
(B) Judicial Oversight - The court noted that the issues raised are already under consideration in a pending Supreme Court case, indicating that the relief sought is redundant. (Paras 8, 14)
Facts of the case:
The PIL was filed to address the plight of undertrial prisoners in overcrowded jails, highlighting statistics on prison occupancy and the violation of fundamental rights.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the issues raised were already being addressed in a pending Supreme Court case and thus dismissed the petition.
Issues: The main issues included the need for guidelines for undertrial releases and the overcrowding of prisons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the issues are being supervised in a pending Supreme Court case, there is no need to entertain the present petition.
Result: Petition dismissed.
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL) CM APPL. 23540/2024 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
Page 2 of 6 W.P.(C) 5698/2024
1. Present Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) has been filed under Articles 20, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, on 18th April, 2024, seeking the following reliefs:
- (i) Direction to the Respondents for issuing guidelines for release of undertrial prisoners (bail), which is to be followed by the judicial officer.
- (ii) Direction to the Respondents to constitute a committee at district level consisting of District Judge, Deputy Commissioner of Police of concerned district, District Magistrate and Two members from general public to be chosen by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court.
- (iii) Direction to the said committee constituted under clause (ii) to hold meeting at least once every month to decide as to which undertrial prisoners can be released and send their name to the concerned magistrate for passing an appropriate order of bail with requisite bail conditions.
- (iv) Direction to the said committee to submit a monthly report to the Hon’ble Chief Justice if this Court for appropriate action.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that this PIL is filed for the benefit of undertrials, who are languishing in over-populated/over- crowded jails pending their trial. He states that if the present PIL is allowed it will put the overpopulated jails under check of a judicial officer and an expert committee, which would eventually result in dignified life for the undertrial prisoners.
3. He states that as per the data available on the website of the National Crime Record Bureau (‘NCRB’) as of 2021, there were 1319 prisons in the country, with actual capacity of 4,25,609, against which 5,54,034 prisoners are lodged in these jails.
Page 3 of 6
4. He states that particularly in Delhi there are three prison complexes with sanctioned inmate strength of 10026 against which 19500 prisoners are lodged as per the data of the year 2021. He states that the convict occupancy rate in Delhi Prisons is only 16.22%, meaning thereby, that 83.33% of the total population of Delhi prisons consists of undertrial prisoners.
5. He states that the percentage of Delhi’s undertrial prisoners is more than the national average and also the total number of undertrial prisoners in Delhi is the third highest in the Country. He further states that 32.5% of total undertrial prisoners are in jails for more than one year, which further aggravates the situation in these overpopulated jails.
6. He states that another aspect of the said shocking situation of undertrial prisoners in Delhi is that the charge sheeting rate in Delhi is only 31% against the national average of 73% of the total FIRs filed; and the conviction rate in Delhi is 16.22%. He states that the above said data prima facie shows that the fundamental rights of these undertrial prisoners are being adversely affected and violated.
7. He states that the Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab1 has held that the bail is a rule and the same is not to be withheld as a form of punishment. He states that the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 under Chapter XXI A, permits the acquittal of undertrial prisoners who enter a plea bargain by offering to undergo not less than 25% of the total permissible sentence; and on the same principle the under-trial prisoners can be granted bail pending trial, even though they have not offered to enter into a plea bargain, 1 1980 (2) SCC 565 .
Page 4 of 6
8. In reply, learned ASG appearing for the Respondent No.1 states that the issues raised by the present Petitioner are directly pending consideration before the Supreme Court in WP(C) 406 of 2013. He has placed reliance on the ‘Standard Operating Procedure For Under-Trial Review Committees’ (‘SOP’) drafted by NALSA and taken on record by the Supreme Court vide order dated 4th December, 2018. He states that infact,
