In the judgment of the case – National Alliance for People's Movements & Others v. The State of Maharashtra & Others, delivered on September 22, 2020, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of the Chief Justice of India, Sharad Bobde, Justice A.S.Bopanna and Justice V. Ramasubramanian has clarified that as already indicated the present methodology for grant of the interim bail is with the intention to avoid overcrowding in jails, in the unprecedented circumstance and grant of bail in the present circumstances is an additional benefit to such persons.
In that circumstance what has been curtailed by the High Powered Commitee –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 has 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 a normal circumstance could still seek for bail in accordance with law and cannot treat the pandemic as fortuitous circumstance to secure bail, to which they were otherwise not entitled to in law by claiming equal treatment.
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 on bail in view of Covid-19 situation and no other legal right has been denied. Therefore, in the circumstances where the present consideration for bail is not provided under a statute but is made available based on the order passed by this Court and further, when a known criteria is formulated by the HPC, which had all materials before it, an interference with the same in a petition of the present nature in any event would not have arisen and the HC was accordingly justified in its conclusion.
That apart, keeping in perspective the object with which the interim bail was ordered to be considered for the purpose of avoiding overcrowding, the HC has taken note of the factual position that as on July 24, 2020, as per details furnished, 10338 prisoners were released on interim bail/parole and presently 26,279 prisoners are in prison.
Since it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the official capacity is only 23,217, the State Govt. had indicated that temporary prisons have been set up at 36 locations and about 2597 prisoners are occupying the same as of now and more will be shifted to avoid overcrowding in the existing prisons, which indicates that appropriate steps are being taken to achieve the object.
Having stated so, it is necessary to indicate that the cause for grievance may arise for an individual undertrial/convicted prisoner only if such person has been discriminated as against the prisoner in the same category for which the benefit has been provided by the categorisation made by the HPC. That apart, the intention being to decongest the prisons, as a first step the release of prisoners based on the impugned guidelines, held to be unflawed would be made.
If, despite the release of the undertrial /convicted prisoners in the categories presently made does not achieve the purpose and the fact that additional prisons are set up also does not suffice and in that context if any modification with regard to the categories made by HPC is necessary; certainly it would be open for the HPC to take note of the same and apply their mind to modify its guidelines in that regard.
On making a detailed consideration, the HC has reached at the conclusion that the decision of the HPC does not call for interference except to the extent of the observations that were made in paragraph 36 of the order. The petitioners, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved were before the Supreme Court through this petition.
The Supreme Court has observed that it was necessary to notice that the present issue has arisen only on the limited scope for grant of interim bail/ parole / furlough due to unforeseen circumstance of the pandemic, namely, Novel Coronavirus (Covid-19) which requires decongesting of prisons with the intention of social distancing to be maintained so as to prevent the spread of virus.
It is in that circumstance, the Supreme Court, while registering a suo motu writ petition (Civil) No.1 / 2020 had taken note of the pandemic and in that context also referred to the decision taken by the Govt. of India to issue an advisory regarding social distancing. In that background, having taken note that there are 1339 prisons in this country and approximately 4,66.084 inmates are lodged in such prisons had adverted to the occupancy rate which is high and, therefore, considering the prisons to be overcrowded had issued certain directions to ensure decongesting and maintaining social distance.
At the first instance, the SC through the order of March 16, 2020, had directed notice to be issued to all the stakeholders in this regard so as to suggest immediate measures which should be adopted for the medical assistance to the prisoners in all jails and the juvenile lodged in the Remand Homes for protection of their health and welfare.
Pursuant to the directions of March 20, 2020, a HPC was constituted in respect of the prisons in the State of Maharashtra. The State Govt. notified the guidelines on May 8, 2020, issued by the HPC on March 25, 2020.
The Supreme Court has also clarified that it would still be open for the petitioners to obtain necessary statistics and if any modification of the guidelines is necessary in future, they will be at liberty to submit an appropriate representation to the HPC which would in that circumstance look into the same and arrive at a conclusion at its discretion depending on the need or otherwise to modify its guidelines.
In that view, the SC is of the opinion that when such factual consideration to achieve the object alone is necessary and the HPC is constituted for the very purpose, interference in a judicial proceeding of the present nature to alter the criteria would not arise unless it is shown to be so arbitrary that no reasonable person can accept.
But in circumstances where there is any individuous discrimination amongst the prisoners in same category and similarly placed, it would be open for the competent court to examine the same to that limited extent when grievance is raised by the person who is denied the benefit if he/she is entitled to Such benefit.
The SC has dismissed the petition with these observations .
