Back
Pendency of Appeal No Bar to Temporary Release of Convicts
In a significant ruling aimed at upholding the fundamental rights of incarcerated individuals, a five-judge Larger Bench of the has declared that the does not, by itself, serve as an absolute bar to a seeking under the .
The Bench, led by Hon'ble Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari along with Justices C.V. Karthikeyan, A.D. Jagadish Chandira, M. Nirmal Kumar, and Sunder Mohan, emphasized that the reformative purpose of leave policies cannot be superseded by the mere pendency of litigation.
The Legal Crossroads The reference to the Larger Bench was necessitated by conflicting interpretations of the 1982 Rules, specifically regarding whether inmates whose appeals are currently before the or the remain eligible for . The Court had previously issued a temporary embargo on accepting such leave applications, a move the Bench has now reversed to prevent "."
Representing the petitioners, counsel stressed the necessity of maintaining family and social ties as an integral part of human dignity, while the , Mr. , highlighted that the is currently reviewing nationwide prison policies in .
Bridging the Statutory Gap The Court delved into the definitions within the 1982 Rules, specifically Rule 2(4). It observed that while a conviction may not be "finally fixed" during an appeal, the legal status of the prisoner has effectively transitioned from "" to "." Importantly, —which explicitly denies leave to those with "pending trials"—does not extend this prohibition to those in the appellate stage.
Addressing concerns regarding the landmark case, the Bench clarified that the precedent was born out of a conflict between executive orders and judicial warrants, and should not be misconstrued as an automatic barrier to statutory leave regimes.
Key Observations The judgment underscored the enduring nature of behind bars:
"We are, thus, of the view that leave and temporary release are facets of human dignity that cannot be suspended indefinitely merely due to the pendency of a judicial appeal."
"Right to life is one of the basic human rights... A prisoner, be he a or undertrial or a , does not cease to be a human being."
"Pending the resolution of the questions by this Larger Bench and the final decision of the Apex Court in the Mukesh Kumar case (supra)... a state of legal uncertainty cannot be allowed to prejudice the of prisoners."
Returning to the Path of Reform As an interim measure, the Court has ordered the Registry to resume entertaining leave applications, directing that they be processed according to the principles established in . The decision provides immediate relief to thousands of prisoners who previously faced indefinite detention without the possibility of temporary release.
This proactive stance ensures that until the finalizes a pan-India policy, the fundamental right to is not eroded by procedural ambiguities. The matter is set to be listed before the respective Division Benches for individual adjudication, while the Larger Bench awaits further clarity from the Apex Court on the national harmonization of prison guidelines.
