NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PEOPLE’S MOVEMENTS & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 8 S.C.R. 997 · Decided: 22-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE, A.S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
997
997
[2020] 8 S.C.R. 997
NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PEOPLE’S MOVEMENTS & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4116 of 2020)
SEPTEMBER 22, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE CJI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Prisoners – Pandemic – Novel Coronavirus (Covid-19) –
Decongestion of prisons – The Supreme Court had taken note of
the pandemic situation and registered a Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 1/2020 and in that context also referred to the decision taken
by the government of India to issue an advisory regarding social
distancing – The Court directed that each State/Union Territory shall
constitute a High Powered Committee (HPC), to determine which
class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for
such period as may be thought appropriate – Pursuant to the
direction, a High-Powered Committee was constituted in respect of
the prisons in the State of Maharashtra – As per the guidelines, the
Committee has classified the inmates of the prisons, broadly into
three categories, viz. (i) undertrial prisoners/convicted persons who
are facing trial or convicted to the maximum punishment of 7 years
or less, (ii) The convicted persons whose sentence is above 7 years
and (iii) The undertrial prisoners or convicted persons who are
booked for serious economic offences/ bank scams and offences
under Special Acts such as MCOC, PMLA etc. – The petitioners
alleged discrimination in categorisation – The High Court held that
the decision of HPC does not call for interference except to the
extent of observations that were made in paragraph 36 of the order
– On appeal, held: The said categorisation cannot be considered
as unreasonable since at the first instance, the categorisation is
required by the Court for grant of interim bail if such undertrial/
convicted person is seeking bail purely on taking benefit of the
notification issued pursuant to such decision taken by the HPC –
The exclusion made has a reasonable basis and cannot be termed
arbitrary – The present methodology for grant of the interim bail is
with the intention to avoid overcrowding in the unprecedented
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
998
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
circumstance and the grant of bail in the present circumstances is
an additional benefit to such persons – In that circumstance what
has been curtailed by the HPC by excluding certain categories is
only with a view to deny the benefit to certain category of jail inmates
who are charged with serious offences which as an adverse effect
on the society at large though the length of the punishment that can
be imposed may be lesser – Such of those persons charged under
the special enactments or convicted for a period, more than 7 years
in any event if they are not otherwise disentitled to bail in the normal
circumstance could still seek bail in accordance with law – All that
the HPC has denied them is the benefit of seeking interim bail only
on the ground that they are entitled to be released in view of the
Covid-19 situation and no other legal right has been denied – The
High Court was accordingly justified in its conclusion.
Dismissing the petition, the Court
HELD: 1. The very purpose of directing each of the States/
Union Territories to constitute a High-Powered Committee is
that the HPC taking note of the subsisting position in such State
will take a decision in the matter as the HPC will have the
wherewithal to secure all details and take a decision. If the said
aspect is kept in view, it is noticed that by the guideline dated
25.03.2020 the Committee in question has categorised the
undertrials/convicted persons by the nature of the crime and the
length of the punishment which will take care of the severity in
the process of consideration. In that regard, insofar as the
undertrial/convicted persons charged under the common law,
namely, the Indian Penal Code; they are classified into two
categories i.e. category-(i) as punishment below 7 years and
category-(ii) as punishment above 7 years so that the consideration
could be in that manner. The Committee has thought it fit to
separately classify the undertrials/convicted persons who are
charged under the Special Enactments irrespective of the
duration of imprisonment notwithstanding the fact that the
punishment imposed could be less than 7 years. In that regard,
what has weighed with the HPC is that such enactments provide
for additional restrictions on grant of bail in addition to those
under the Cri

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.