Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Deepa Angadi, wife of Siddappa (CTP-0898), filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad. She sought a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 (Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Belgavi) and Respondent No.3 (Life Convicts Release Committee) to grant remission to her husband, daughter-in-law, and sister-in-law as per the policy that stood at the time of their admission, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Sharafat Ali's case. The petitioner also sought consideration of their release after remission. The court, presided over by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, heard the matter on preliminary hearing. The court observed that the petitioner, being the wife of one of the convicts, lacked locus standi to seek remission on behalf of her daughter-in-law and sister-in-law. Furthermore, the court noted that the remission policy was not yet finalized, making the petition premature. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as premature, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to approach the appropriate forum at the appropriate time.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Locus Standi - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioner, wife of a life convict, sought remission for her husband, daughter-in-law, and sister-in-law - Court held that the petitioner has no locus standi to seek remission on behalf of others, and the petition is premature as the remission policy is not yet finalized - Held that the petition is dismissed as premature (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to seek remission for her husband, daughter-in-law, and sister-in-law, and whether the petition is premature as the remission policy is not yet finalized.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as premature. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum at the appropriate time.
Law Points
- Locus standi
- Premature petition
- Remission policy
- Life convicts
- Writ of mandamus
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (08) 42
WP No. 107708 of 2024 (GM-POLICE)
Smt. Umme Salma for Sri. Sirajuddin Ahmed (for petitioner), Sri. Sharad V. Magadum, AGA (for respondents)
State of Karnataka, Chief Superintendent Central Prison Belgavi, The Life Convicts Release Committee, The Director General of Police Prison and Correctional Services
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus for remission of life convicts.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to Respondent No.2 and 3 to grant remission to her husband, daughter-in-law, and sister-in-law as per the policy at the time of their admission, and to consider their release after remission.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that her husband, daughter-in-law, and sister-in-law were entitled to remission under the policy that existed at the time of their admission, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sharafat Ali's case.
Issues
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to seek remission for her husband, daughter-in-law, and sister-in-law?
Whether the petition is premature as the remission policy is not yet finalized?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that remission should be granted as per the policy at the time of admission, relying on Sharafat Ali's case.
Respondents likely argued that the petition is premature and the petitioner lacks locus standi.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ of mandamus cannot be issued for a premature claim, and a petitioner lacks locus standi to seek remission on behalf of others who are not parties to the petition.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of mandamus, directing Respondent No.2 and 3 to grant remission Petitioner husband, daughter in law and sister in law as per the policy stood at the time of their admission in the light of judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sharafat Ali’s case.
The petitioner, who is the wife of Siddappa (CTP-0898), is before this Court seeking for the reliefs as stated above.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed on an unspecified date and came up for preliminary hearing before Justice Suraj Govindaraj on 22 August 2025, who dismissed it as premature.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
