The Times of India 9 Feb 2008 P 11 Delhi
Says Premature Release Dangerous To Society
In a warning to governments not to indulge in political gimmickry at the expense of the common citizen’s life and security, the Supreme Court stalled the Andhra Pradesh government’s controversial decision to release lifers before they complete the mandatory 14 years in prison. The SC came down heavily on what it felt was an illthought out proposal to release hardened criminals in society, imperilling the lives of ordinary people, and terned the AP government’s move illegal. Though it allowed the Y S Rajasekhara Reddy government to go ahead with release of those convicted for offences other than heinous crimes like murder, the court was categoric that enlarging hardcore criminals, much before they served the mandatory prison term, would be perilous to society. On the stalled decision to release 1,500-odd prisoners on Independency Day last year, a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice R V Raveendran said: “This is wholesale release of prisoners without applying mind to the crime for which they have been convicted. We cannot allow such wholesale release of criminals into society. People have a right to live peacefully in the society.” The view of the court seems to have been that keeping murderers in jail was a good way of reducing crime, or at least not adding to it. The SC’s remarks came on a petition filed by advocate R Chandrashekar Reddy who had challenged the AP government’s decision. His counsel, senior advocate P S Mishra, said the government was proposing release of lifers even though many of them had served just six to seven years in prison. He said Section 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly mandates that no person convicted for life imprisonment would be released by the state government, which decides to remit his rest of the sentence, before completing a minimum of 14 years in prison. Counsel for the state government, senior advocate T R Andhyarujina, said the statutory bar did not apply as it was a decision taken by the governor in exercise of his constitutional powers to grant remission of sentence. This argument seeking to make statutes succumb to the governor’s constitutional power annoyed the court no end. The CJI said: “Can the power of the governor be exercised contrary to law? Life imprisonment means the person has to spend his entire life in prison. He could be released after spending 14 years in prison if granted remission by the governor.” When Andhyarujina pressed for superiority of the governor’s constitutional powers and tried to distinguish it from the statutory provisions, the Bench said: “All constitutional powers are to be exercised in conformity with law.” Making it amply clear that the court would not shy away from discharging its duty to test the legality of the governor’s exercise of remission powers for premature release of prisoners, the Bench said: “Let the governor exercise the powers under the Constitution. We will see whether he can act contrary to law.”
Apex court raps state for branding lawyer a Maoist
Advocate R Chandrashekar Reddy was branded a Maoist sympathiser and ordered to be put under surveillance by the Andhra Pradesh police soon after he moved the Supreme Court challengimg the state’s decision to release 1,500-odd prisoners much before they served their sentence. Seeking the state’s response to the allegations, a Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan said: “Somebody files a PIL, the court issues interim order and the very next day you brand him a Maoist sympathiser and put him under surveillance?” the court asked state’s counsel T R Andhyarujina. The state denied this and said police protection had already been given to the PIL petitioner. However, the court issued notice to the state and asked it to file its affidavit responding to the charges levelled by Reddy.
With Thanks from the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in
No comments:
Post a Comment