STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. versus BHOLA @ BHAIRON PRASAD RAGHUVANSHI

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 906 · Decided: 06-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. 
v. 
BHOLA @ BHAIRON PRASAD RAGHUVANSHI 
FEBRUARY 6, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND 
G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
C 
Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954/Madhya 
Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1964 -Sections 2 and 9(4)/ 
Rule 3(a)-Release on probation-Rule. excluding certain offences from 
application of the Act-Validity of the Rule-Held, the Rule is not ultra vires 
the Act-Act is intended to be made applicable to less serious offences-The 
Rule is a delegated legislation and it is open to the legislature to lay down 
D a general policy permitting reformative method of punishment but by limiting 
its application to less serious crimes-U.P. Prisoners' Release on Probation 
Act, 1938-Sections 2 and 9-U.P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Ru/es-
Rule 3(a). 
E 
Administrative law : 
Delegated legislation-Criteria for considering validity of-Held, 
delegated legislation can be declared invalid if it violates any provision of the 
Constitution and if it violates the enabling Act-But when the enabling Act 
itself permits ancillary and subsidiary functions of the legislature to be 
F pe1formed by the executive as its delegate, the legislation cannot be held to 
be violative of enabling Act. 
Respondent-prisoner, who was a convict for offence u/s 396 IPC, on 
completion of more than five years sentence of his imprisonment, applied 
for release on probation under Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on 
G Probation Act, 1954. His application was not considered by the State, 
because by Rule 3(a) of Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation 
Rules, 1964, convicts for offences u/s 396 IPC cannot seek release on 
probation under the Act. 
H 
In writ petition against the rejection of the application,Jf igh Court 
906 
ST ATE OF M.P. ''·BHOLA @BHAIRON PRASAD RAGHUVANSHI 
907 
directed the State lo consider the application as per the provisions of the A 
Act and the Rules. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant-State contended that Rule 3(a) 
cannot be construed to mean that it defeats the objects of Section 2 of the 
Act or exceeds the rule making power conferred under Section 9(4) of the B 
Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 
1954 aims at giving effect to the current penal philosophy of reforming 
the prisoners while they are undergoing sentences of imprisonment. For C 
the above purpose, Section 2 confers the power on the authorities to release 
a prisoner on probation keeping in view his antecedents and his conduct 
in the prison. Section 9 contains the rule making power and sub-section 
4 authorizes the State Government to frame rules to define or specify the 
class of offenders who can be conditionally released. By specifying in Rule D 
3(a) of Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1964, the 
offenders undergoing imprisonment under certain offences of serious 
nature as not eligible for release on licence, there is implied specification 
· "-
of offences excluded in Rule 3(a) lo be the class of offenders whose cases 
can be considered for release on probation under the Act. The preamble 
of the Act. indicates the intention of the legislature that the benefit of E 
release on probation for good conduct in prison is lo be made available 
not to all but to "certain prisoners" meaning prisoners ofa particular class. 
Thus they can be classified in relation to the offences committed by them 
for which they are sentenced. Reformative system of punishment by 
releasing prisoners on the basis of their good conduct in prison and for F 
turning them out as good citizens after they serve out their periods of 
sentences is not to be resorted to indiscriminately without reference to the 
nature of offence for which they are convicted. [914-G, H; 915-A-B; C-01 
Maru Ram v. Union of India, [1981[ I SCC JOO, relied on. 
'Justice through Punishment' by Barbara Hudson, referred to 
G 
2. Rule 3(a) is a piece of delegated legislation. Such a delegated 
legislation is recognized as valid because on certain legislative fields, it is 
possible for the legislature only to lay down a policy and give sufficient 
guidelines for the executive authorities lo carry ii into effect. It is open H 
908 
, 
• 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] I S.C.R. 
A to the legislature to lay down a general policy permitting reformath•e 
method of punishment but by limiting its application to less serious crimes. 
Gra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.