Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Amit s/o Gajanan Gandhi, a life convict undergoing imprisonment in Central Prison, Nagpur, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 21.4.2018 passed by the Home Department of the State of Maharashtra. The order directed that the petitioner be released after completion of 30 years of imprisonment including remission, subject to good behavior. The order categorized the petitioner under clause 7(a) of the 1992 Guidelines and category 6(d) of the 2010 Guidelines, both of which provide for 30 years of imprisonment including remission, subject to a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment including set-off period. The petitioner argued that the classification was arbitrary and violative of his fundamental rights. The court heard Shri N.H. Samundre for the petitioner and Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the respondents-State. The court analyzed the guidelines and found that the classification was reasonable, based on the nature of the offense and the conduct of the convict. The court held that the order was valid and did not violate Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The court also noted that the petitioner was currently on furlough leave.
Headnote
A) Prisons and Remission - Premature Release - Classification of Life Convicts - Guidelines dated 11.5.1992 and 15.3.2010 - The petitioner, a life convict, challenged the order categorizing him under clause 7(a) of 1992 Guidelines and category 6(d) of 2010 Guidelines requiring 30 years imprisonment including remission. The court held that the classification is reasonable and based on the nature of the offense and conduct, and does not violate Articles 14 or 21. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 21.4.2018 directing the petitioner's release after completion of 30 years of imprisonment including remission is valid and whether the classification under the 1992 and 2010 Guidelines is arbitrary or violative of fundamental rights.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The order dated 21.4.2018 is upheld.
Law Points
- Remission guidelines
- life imprisonment
- premature release
- classification of convicts
- Article 226
- Article 14
- Article 21
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (02) 150
Criminal Writ Petition No.131 of 2019
Sunil B. Shukre, Madhav J. Jamdar
Shri N.H. Samundre for petitioner, Shri T.A. Mirza for respondents-State
State of Maharashtra, Inspector General of Prisons, Pune, Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition challenging an order directing release after 30 years imprisonment including remission.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 21.4.2018 and direction for premature release under remission guidelines.
Filing Reason
Petitioner challenged the classification under 1992 and 2010 Guidelines requiring 30 years imprisonment as arbitrary.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 21.4.2018 passed by Home Department, State of Maharashtra.
Issues
Whether the order dated 21.4.2018 directing release after 30 years imprisonment including remission is valid.
Whether the classification under 1992 and 2010 Guidelines is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the classification under the guidelines is arbitrary and violates fundamental rights.
Respondents-State argued that the classification is reasonable and based on the nature of the offense and conduct.
Ratio Decidendi
The classification of life convicts under the 1992 and 2010 Guidelines for premature release requiring 30 years imprisonment including remission is reasonable and not violative of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner, who is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Prison, Nagpur, by the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged order dated 21.4.2018 passed by the Home Department of the State of Maharashtra, by which it has been directed that the petitioner will be released from jail after completion of 30 years of imprisonment including remission.
We have heard Shri N.H. Samundre, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri T.A. Mirza, learned APP for the respondents-State.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.131 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the order dated 21.4.2018. The petition was reserved on 17th February 2020 and pronounced on 28th February 2020.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 14, Article 21
