STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus MOHAN SINGH

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 842 · Decided: 20-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA, B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
MOHAN SINGH 
SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Climinal Law : 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
S.432(1)-Grant of special remission by State Govemment-R.estlicted 
only to SC/ST and female plisoners-Held, not valid since all prisoners are 
equal and is not a measure for advancement of SC/ST-Hence not covered 
imderA1t. 15(4) of the Constitution of India-High Court could have quashed 
the special remission-Not to have granted a general remission where the 
D State intended that to be restricted-However, .person who obtained the 
benefit of High Court's order permitted to retain it-Constitution of 
India-Art. 15(4). 
E 
F 
On the occasion of Republic Day, 1978, under the provisions of 
Section 432(1) Cr.P.C., the State of Madhya Pradesh granted special 
remission to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and female prisoners. 
Respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court claiming that 
such remission should be granted to them also, as otherwise, it violated 
their right to equality. State contended that SC/ST pris~ners constituted 
a class and special remission could validly be given to them. The High 
Court held that the benefit of Article 15(4) relied upon by the State was 
not a valid defence in as much as the provision for special remission could 
not be said to have been made for the advancement of SC/ST. 
Declaring it to be discriminatory, the High Court directed the State 
G to give the benefit of special remission to the writ petitioners. Hence this 
appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. There was no justification in law for giving special 
H remission to prisoners belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
842 
' ' 
STATE v. MOHAN SINGH 
843 
Tribes. In so far as these prisoners had broken the law and were being A 
punished for doing so, they stood on the same footing as all other 
prisoners. The invocation of Article 15(4) was wholly unjustified; the grant 
of remission to convicted prisoners belonging to the Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes can hardly be said to be a measure for the "advancement" 
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. [845-E] 
2. Having come to the conclusion that the grant of special remission 
to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe prisoners was unlawful, the 
proper course to adopt should have been to strike it down. It was beyond 
the High Court's power to expand the reach ofthe remission so as to give 
B 
the benefit of it is the writ petitioner, who did not belong to the Scheduled C 
Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The power to grant the remission lay with the 
State. If the power was improperly exercised, the High Court could quash 
the exercise; but it could not grant a general remission where the State 
had intended it to be restricted. [845-G-H] 
3. However, those who have obtained the benefit of the High Court's D 
order must be permitted to retain it and they cannot now be required to 
serve out the terms in respect of which they got such benefit. [846-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2289 of 
~ 
E 
From the Judgment and Order 7.8.80 of the Madhya Pradesh High 
Court in Misc. Petition No. 175 of 1980. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2278-79/86, 523/87 and 1035 of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.80, 21.11.80 & 31.10.80 
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. P. Nos. 649/80, 652/80, 608, 
and 524 of 1980. 
Sakesh Kumar, T.C. Sharma and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellant. 
Sushi! Kr. Jain and R.C. Kaushik for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
G 
H 
844 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
These appeals by special leave impugn the judgments and orders of 
Division Benches of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court 
allowed several writ petitions and directed the respondent State to give to 
the writ petitioners the benefit of a special remission which the State had 
restricted to prisoners belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
B 
Tribes and to female prisoners. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The remission was granted on the occasion of Republic Day, 1978, 
under the provisions of Section 432(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
In clause (i) certain general remissions were granted, with which we are 
not concerned. Clauses (ii) dealt with the special remission and read thus: 
"Special Remissions : 
In addition to the aforesaid remission all female prisoners and 
those prisoners 

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