Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Shri Anupkumar M. Kumre, Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur, under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The background of the case involves the COVID-19 pandemic, during which the State of Maharashtra introduced Rule 19(1)(c) in the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2020, on 8 May 2020, providing for emergency parole to decongest prisons. The petitioner, Hanuman Anandrao Pendam, a convict, filed a writ petition seeking release on emergency parole. In response, the Superintendent filed a reply stating that the petitioner did not surrender voluntarily and had to be arrested. The Court found that the Superintendent had selectively applied the binding precedent in Milind Ashok Patil and Ors vs State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition-ASDB-LD-VC No.65/2020, by refusing to release 35 eligible prisoners on emergency parole while granting parole to 6 ineligible prisoners. Additionally, the Superintendent made misleading statements in the affidavit filed before the Court, despite having been cautioned twice earlier by two Coordinate Benches of the same Court. The Court held that such conduct amounts to wilful disobedience of its orders and constitutes contempt of court. The Court issued notice to the Superintendent to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience - Article 215 of the Constitution of India - Suo Motu Contempt - The Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur, for selectively applying the binding precedent in Milind Ashok Patil and Ors vs State of Maharashtra, thereby refusing to release 35 eligible prisoners on emergency parole while granting parole to 6 ineligible prisoners, and for making misleading statements in affidavits despite prior cautions by Coordinate Benches. Held that such conduct amounts to wilful disobedience of the Court's orders and undermines the authority of the judiciary (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur, committed contempt of court by wilfully disobeying the binding precedent of this Court regarding release of prisoners on emergency parole, and by making misleading statements in affidavits filed before the Court.
Final Decision
The Court issued notice to the Superintendent to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for wilful disobedience of the Court's orders and for making misleading statements in affidavits.
Law Points
- Contempt of Court
- Wilful Disobedience
- Emergency Parole
- Article 215 of the Constitution of India
- Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules
- 2020
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (03) 89
Criminal Writ Petition No. 537/2021
V.M. Deshpande, Amit Borkar
F.T. Mirza (Amicus Curiae), Shweta D. Wankhede (for Petitioner), M.K. Pathan (APP for Respondent/State), S.V. Sirpurkar (for Respondent No. 2)
State of Maharashtra, The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the High Court against the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur, for wilful disobedience of court orders regarding emergency parole.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner, a convict, sought release on emergency parole under Rule 19(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2020.
Filing Reason
The Superintendent selectively applied the binding precedent in Milind Ashok Patil and Ors vs State of Maharashtra, refusing to release 35 eligible prisoners on emergency parole while granting parole to 6 ineligible prisoners, and made misleading statements in affidavits.
Previous Decisions
The Superintendent had been cautioned twice earlier by two Coordinate Benches of this Court regarding similar conduct.
Issues
Whether the Superintendent's selective application of the binding precedent amounts to wilful disobedience of the Court's orders?
Whether the Superintendent's misleading statements in affidavits constitute contempt of court?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Superintendent refused to release him on emergency parole despite being eligible under the Rules.
The Court noted that the Superintendent granted parole to 6 ineligible prisoners while denying 35 eligible prisoners, indicating selective and wilful disobedience.
Ratio Decidendi
Selective application of a binding precedent by a public authority, especially when it results in denial of benefits to eligible persons while granting benefits to ineligible persons, amounts to wilful disobedience of the court's orders and constitutes contempt of court. Making misleading statements in affidavits filed before the court, despite prior cautions, further aggravates the contempt.
Judgment Excerpts
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...
The facts which necessitated initiation of sou-motu contempt proceedings... briefly are as under:-
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 537/2021 seeking release on emergency parole. In response, the Superintendent filed a reply. The Court, upon examining the reply and the conduct of the Superintendent, initiated suo motu contempt proceedings and issued notice to the Superintendent to show cause.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 215
- Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2020: Rule 19(1)(c)
