HC orders Punjab to free 412 prison inmates, says they ‘can't be expected to live at whims and fancies of state'
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the immediate interim release of 412 inmates whose premature release applications have been pending for over six months, calling out the state for 'trivialising' the delay and violating the prisoners' fundamental rights.
In an interim order this week, in the case of Malkit Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar directed that all eligible prisoners be granted interim bail within two weeks. 'The incarcerated cannot be expected to live at the whims and fancies of the State, and neither does their incarceration entitle the administration to jeopardise their fundamental rights,' the judge observed, pulling up the state for its apathy.
The case has its roots in a surprise judicial visit to Ludhiana's jails in 2019, during which inmates flagged delays in the processing of their release. A fresh affidavit submitted on December 10, 2024, revealed that 412 such cases remain unresolved, prompting the court to act.
Justice Brar cited the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration, reaffirming that 'all prisoners shall be entitled to all the rights bestowed upon the citizens by the Constitution of India'. The judgment reiterates that incarceration does not strip individuals of their right to dignity, liberty, and due process.
The court directed chief judicial magistrates across Punjab to oversee the release process and required the state to submit detailed reports on all pending premature release cases from the last two years. The registry has been asked to forward the list of 412 inmates to the respective magistrates to ensure compliance.
Additionally, the states of Haryana and Chandigarh have been ordered to file affidavits with a month-wise breakdown of similar pending cases. The matter will next be heard on August 6.
Justice Brar's ruling also referenced the Supreme Court's recent guidance in the 2025 In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail case, which obligates states to consider eligible convicts for release even without formal applications. Quoting Nelson Mandela—'To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity'—Justice Brar underscored the need to shift from punitive incarceration to a reformative model of justice.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Sudha Murty conferred with Justice K.S. Hegde Charitable Foundation Award
Author, philanthropist, and Member of Rajya Sabha, Sudha Murty was on Wednesday conferred with the Justice K.S. Hegde Charitable Foundation Award 2025 for her contributions to literature and social service. The award ceremony was held on the Nitte Meenakshi Institute of Technology campus in Bengaluru. N. Vinaya Hegde, president, Nitte Education Trust and Chancellor, Nitte Deemed to be University, praised Ms. Murty's service and commitment to rural development, drawing inspiration from K.S. Hegde's legacy. N. Santosh Hegde, former Supreme Court judge and Karnataka Lokayukta, lauded Ms. Murty's work in empowering women and youth. In her acceptance speech, Ms. Murty highlighted the impermanence of material wealth, stressing the enduring impact of social contributions. 'Only the sacrifices we make for society will truly last,' she said. The foundation, established in honour of K.S. Hegde, former Supreme Court judge and Speaker of the Lok Sabha, recognises individuals annually on June 11 for societal contributions.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Judicial overreach risks unsettling power balance, says Justice Kant
NEW DELHI: At a time when judicial activism is often perceived as intrusion into the legislative domain, senior most judge of Supreme Court, Justice Surya Kant, Wednesday warned against courts supplanting the role of the legislature. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "Courts mustn't supplant the role of legislature or override the will of the people. Instead, they must act as facilitators of democratic dialogue - strengthening participatory governance, protecting the vulnerable, and ensuring rule of law prevails even in moments of political uncertainty... Judicial overreach risks unsettling the delicate balance of power," he said. CJI Gavai: Judicial activism mustn't turn into judicial terrorism In his keynote address at the 'Envision India Conclave' in San Francisco, Justice Surya Kant said, "True constitutional guardianship lies not in dominance but in restraint - an ethos that reaffirms the judiciary's legitimacy in a vibrant democracy." Speaking on similar lines on Tuesday night, CJI B R Gavai had said at Oxford Union, "Judicial activism is bound to stay. At the same time, judicial activism should not be turned into judicial terrorism. .. (judiciary at times) try to exceed the limits and try to enter into an area where, normally, the judiciary should not enter." Outlining the challenges faced by judiciary in the era of social media explosion where every person has something to say on everything, he said, "In today's hyper-connected world, we are witnessing the rise of a vast digital community - vocal, impatient and, often, uninformed - whose engagement with law is shaped less by understanding and more by sentiment." CJI B R Gavai further said, "They expect courts to deliver judgments that align with their transient emotions and impulses and when the courts' rulings do not match with their expectations based on half-cooked knowledge of law and Constitution, what follows is not reasoned critique but a barrage of trolling, misinformation and personal attacks." This phenomenon posed a subtle yet significant threat to the independence of judiciary, especially in a globalised digital age, CJI Gavai said, adding that it posed a challenge to the reputation of judges and the judicial institution. "It must be met not with timidity, but with the firmness and clarity of purpose that befits a constitutional democracy governed by reason, not rhetoric," he said.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
SC junks Pakistani Christian's plea for citizenship ignoring CAA cut-off
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain the plea of a Goa-born Pakistani Catholic man, who sought a direction to the Centre to allow him citizenship under Citizenship Amendment Act , 2019 citing religious persecution in Pakistan even though he arrived in India six years after the Jan 2014 cutoff date. Jude Mendes, who was born in Goa to a Pakistani national in 1987 but completed his studies at Karachi in Pakistan, arrived in India in 2016 on a long-term visa which has been extended till June this year and even got his Aadhaar card made in 2020. He married an Indian woman in February this year. Three days after the Pahalgam terror attack on tourists by Pak-backed terrorists, India on April 25 cancelled all kinds of visas given to Pakistani nationals. However, long term visas, which Mendes has, have not been revoked. Mendes' visa expires on June 20. Advocate Raghav Awasthi told a partial working day bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan that "the Petitioner is born in India and is a Roman Catholic which being a minority community is heavily persecuted in Pakistan. He cannot travel to Pakistan to renew his passport which is expiring on 20.06.2025 due to the threat to his life and that therefore, he ought to be granted extension of his long-term visa. " The petitioner said in the event of his deportation to Pakistan, the petitioner who was born in India and now lawfully married to an Indian citizen, would face imminent threat to his life because of extreme religious persecution in Pakistan. At present he works as a chef in Goa. But the bench said that he would have to move the Bombay HC for the relief he is seeking. The petitioner's lawyer withdrew the plea to move the HC. Under CAA, India had resolved to grant citizenship to those individuals from minority communities who have been persecuted in neighbouring countries on the ground of religion. However, the law stipulated that they should have entered India prior to Jan 1, 2014.
