Prison authorities can decide on furlough requests of convicts whose appeals are pending in Supreme Court: Delhi HC
The convicts had specifically challenged Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, after their requests for furlough were denied by jail authorities earlier. The said provision reads: 'If an appeal of a convict is pending before the High Court or the period for filing an appeal before the High Court has not expired, furlough will not be granted and it would be open to the convict to seek appropriate directions from the Court.'
Justices Prathiba Singh and Amit Sharma reasoned, 'The fact that 'Supreme Court' had not been incorporated in Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Prison Rules is further fortified from the fact that various other provisions in the Prison Rules have referred to 'Supreme Court' in various circumstances, and therefore, non-mentioning of 'Supreme Court' in the Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Prison Rules cannot be considered as an omission. The intention of the Competent Authority while drafting the Rules is clear from the plain language itself that what was restricted was grant of parole/furlough to convicts whose appeals are pending adjudication before the High Court and not Hon'ble Supreme Court.'
The division bench further held that 'since mere pendency of Criminal Appeal/Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be taken as a bar for release on furlough, each case would be determined on its own eligibility criteria as per Rules by the Competent Authority and the same would be subject to judicial review..by the High Court'. It added that the prison rule provision cannot be interpreted to consider a bar on either the convicts' right to apply for furlough if their appeal is pending before the Supreme Court.
During the 1987 Hashimpura massacre in Uttar Pradesh's Meerut, the accused, who were posted for riot control following communal riots, rounded up around 42-45 Muslim men and took them away in a truck. They were later shot, and the bodies were dumped in the Gang Nahar and Hindon canal. Of the 38 who were killed, the bodies of only 11 were identified by families. The remaining bodies were not recovered.
In 2018, a division bench of the Delhi High Court, headed by Justice S Muralidhar, reversed the 2015 acquittal of 16 former members of the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) in the Hashimpura massacre case, and held them guilty of murder, criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, and causing disappearance of evidence. The convicts were sentenced to life imprisonment.
The Delhi High Court also set aside a single judge's interpretation in an order in July 2023, which had held that the 'high court' in the above provision implies any appellate court, which would then include the Delhi High Court as well as the Supreme Court.
The convicts, whose criminal appeals are pending before the Supreme Court, had challenged the rejection of their furlough request by the prison authorities. The latest court ruling means that the high court can now hear their petitions seeking a review of the prison authorities' rejection.
The division bench in its order held, 'To impose a bar on consideration of parole/furlough if a Special Leave Petition or Appeal is pending in the Supreme Court could have completely unpredictable consequences and could also result in practical difficulties for convicts who may require to be granted parole/furlough due to emergent situations.'
'It cannot be expected that every convict would have to compulsorily approach the Supreme Court for temporary release or emergent release in grave situations, including medical exigencies of the convict, demise in the family, any emergency involving children of the convict, etc… The Delhi Prison Rules are categorical and clear that Rule 1224 bars parole/furlough being granted only if the appeal is pending in the High Court. This bar cannot be extended to the Supreme Court by way of judicial interpretation when the language does not read as such,' the order added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
30 minutes ago
- The Hindu
As Assam CM defends eviction drives, Opposition sniffs ploy to clear space for corporate houses
Jiten Gohain is the head of one of 218 families evicted during a drive the authorities in Assam's Lakhimpur district carried out on July 3 to reclaim 78 acres of Village Grazing Reserve (VGR) land across four locations. On July 8, the district's Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee approved the allotment of 1.5 kathas (4,320 sq. ft) of land each to 21 families evicted, in one of the fastest such exercises. Among them were 12 belonging to the Ahom community, which is seeking Scheduled Tribe status, to which Mr. Gohain belongs. District Commissioner Pronab Jit Kakoty said the eviction drive was conducted following 'due process'. He said the affected families, which failed to produce land ownership documents, were served notices on June 29. 'I had a larger plot from where we were evicted, but the government has at least provided some space,' Mr. Gohain said. Abul Hasan Sheikh, one of some 200-odd Bengali-speaking Muslim families evicted from Lakhimpur, is not sure if the government would be equally 'generous' to provide him an alternative plot. He is originally a resident of western Assam's South Salmara-Mankachar district along the border with Bangladesh. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma named him and at least a dozen others from faraway districts – most of them Muslim-majority – to underline the alleged 'agenda of demographic invasion by strategically occupying lands in areas dominated by indigenous communities'. 'An analysis has revealed that the families evicted from Lakhimpur included 76 from Barpeta, 63 from Nagaon, seven from Goalpara, and two from South Salmara-Mankachar. Why should someone from South Salmara go to Lakhimpur instead of going to West Bengal, about 50 km away?' Mr. Sarma told reporters on Tuesday. 'Voter list deletions' The Chief Minister said more than 50,000 people have been evicted from 'protected areas, wetlands, VGR and PGR (Professional Grazing Land), government khas (land owned by the government that has not been settled) and wasteland, and those belonging to satras (Vaishnav monasteries) and namghars (prayer halls)' over the past few weeks. According to the State's Revenue and Disaster Management Department, the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation of 1986, the Land Policy of 1989, and a 2011 Supreme Court judgment mandate protection of government and village common lands. It also cites the violation of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act of 2010 as a punishable offence. After the BJP came to power in Assam in May 2016, the first eviction drive was carried out in three fringe villages of Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve. Two persons, including a minor girl, were killed during the eviction based on a Gauhati High Court order in September 2016. 'Most of those evicted are listed as voters in places from where they came. We have asked the authorities from where they were evicted to delete their names from the electoral rolls to eliminate duplicate names,' Mr. Sarma said. Citing the case of the 12 Ahom families, the All Assam Minority Students' Union has demanded rehabilitation for the evicted Muslim families. It claimed many people had lands they were evicted from before these were declared as reserve forests. The Opposition parties have criticised the eviction drive for disproportionately targeting the minority communities. 'The Supreme Court and the National Human Rights Commission should take note of the eviction during the court holidays in Assam to target poor Muslims. The government must first provide adequate rehabilitation and only then undertake eviction,' All India United Democratic Front MLA Rafiqul Islam said. 'The BJP government has been projecting the evicted people as Bangladeshi. The government provided a compensation package of ₹14.72 crore to 332 families evicted from Kaziranga. People evicted [in 2021] for the Gorukhuti project [Darrang district] were compensated and given land in the Dalgaon area. Why is the government doing so if these people are Bangladeshi?' Congress leader and advocate Aman Wadud said. Others pointed out that the Dhubri district administration has asked 1,400 families displaced from Chapar town, reportedly to make space for a thermal power plant by the Adani Group, to relocate to a sandbar in the middle of the Brahmaputra river. 'Politics of polarisation' 'The eviction is being carried out for two reasons. Firstly, they want to clear land for corporate houses. Secondly, evicting minorities paves the way for the politics of polarisation... so that the Hindu voters back the BJP, especially in eastern Assam, where it is facing challenges,' Raijor Dal MLA Akhil Gogoi said. Lurinjyoti Gogoi, the chief of Assam Jatiya Parishad (AJP), said eviction drives are a form of the tried-and-tested ploy of weaponising the 'Bangladeshi issue' before the poll. The Assembly poll in Assam is due by May 2026. 'The Chief Minister claims he is doing everything for the indigenous people. In reality, more tribal families have been evicted than the Muslims. In Karbi Anglong, 20,000 Adivasi, Karbi, and Naga families have been evicted to hand over 18,000 bighas of land to the Reliance Group,' the AJP leader claimed. In Assam, one bigha is equivalent to 14,400 sq. ft. He also cited 9,000 bighas of land 'to be handed over to the Adani Group' in Dima Hasao district, 45 bighas 'taken away' from the Adivasis for a hotel project near Kaziranga, and 75 bighas for a Patanjali project in the Golaghat district. 'It is evident why the government is on a land acquisition spree. Of the 49,000 bighas cleared, only 6,000 bighas were under the occupation of the religious minorities,' the AJP leader said.
NDTV
37 minutes ago
- NDTV
Thousands Of Afghans, Who Worked With Forces, Secretly Resettled In UK
London: Thousands of Afghans, including many who worked with British forces, have been secretly resettled in after a leak of data on their identities raised fears that the could target them, the British government revealed Tuesday. The government said it is closing the program, which a rare court order had barred the media from disclosing. "To all those whose information was compromised, I offer a sincere apology today," Defense Secretary John Healey said in the House of Commons. He said he regretted the secrecy and "have felt deeply concerned about the lack of transparency to Parliament and the public." Healey told lawmakers that a spreadsheet containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 people who had applied to come to Britain after the Taliban takeover of was accidentally released in 2022 because of a defense official's email error. The government only became aware of the leak when some of the data was published on Facebook 18 months later. The then-Conservative government sought a court order barring disclosure of the leak, in an attempt to prevent the personal information being made public any further. The High Court issued an order known as a super injunction that barred anyone from revealing its existence. The government then set up a secret program to resettle the Afghans judged to be at greatest threat from the country's Taliban rulers. The injunction was lifted on Tuesday in conjunction with a decision by Britain's current Labour Party government to make the program public. It said an independent review had found little evidence that the leaked data would expose Afghans to a greater risk of retribution from the Taliban. The review said the Taliban had other sources of information on those who had worked with the previous Afghan government and international forces, and in any case was more concerned with curent threats to its authority. Some 4,500 Afghans - 900 applicants and approximately 3,600 family members - have been brought to Britain under the program, and about 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the time it closes, at a total cost of about 850 million pounds ($1.1 billion). Around 36,000 Afghans have been relocated to the U.K. under other resettlement routes since 2021. Critics say that still leaves thousands of people who helped British troops as interpreters or in other roles at risk of torture, imprisonment or death. Sean Humber, a lawyer at the firm Leigh Day, which has represented many Afghan claimants, said the "catastrophic" data breach had caused "anxiety, fear and distress" to those affected. Nooralhaq Nasimi, founder of the U.K.'s Afghanistan and Central Asian Association, said "thousands of Afghans who supported the U.K. mission - many of whom placed their trust in this country - have had that trust gravely betrayed." He urged the government to "offer meaningful compensation, and take urgent steps to protect those still at risk." British soldiers were sent to Afghanistan as part of an international deployment against al-Qaida and Taliban forces in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. At the peak of the operation, there were almost 10,000 U.K. troops in the country, mostly in Helmand province in the south. Britain ended combat operations in 2014, and its remaining troops left Afghanistan in 2021 as the Taliban swept back to power, two decades after they were ousted. The Taliban's return triggered chaotic scenes as Western nations rushed to evacuate citizens and Afghan employees. Super injunctions are relatively rare, and their use is controversial. Unlike regular court injunctions, super injunctions bar reporting that they were even ordered. The handful of cases in which they have come to light involved celebrities trying to prevent disclosures about their private lives. This is the first known case of a super injunction being granted to the government. Healey said he was not aware of any others. Judge Martin Chamberlain, who ruled that the injunction should be lifted, said Tuesday at the High Court that the gag order had "given rise to serious free speech concerns." "The super injunction had the effect of completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability, which operate in a democracy," he said. "This led to what I describe as a 'scrutiny vacuum."
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Compromising cases by sharing comunidade land illegal, says SC
Margao: In a major blow to the practice of comunidades to settle court cases with tenants through the sharing of disputed land, the Supreme Court has held that such arrangements violate both the Tenancy Act and the Land Use Act, effectively circumventing statutory protections for agricultural land. The SC, in its judgment delivered on Monday, dismissed an appeal by the comunidade of Tivim, upholding a lower court's decision to deny permission for a proposed 60:40 land-sharing compromise with agricultural tenants. The verdict of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said that the proposed compromise terms 'fall foul of both the statutes' — the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991. The court said that such arrangements create 'freehold ownership rights over tenanted land, without resorting to the procedure contemplated for the purchase of such land by the tenant'. The arrangements, the SC said, allow parties to use agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, which is 'expressly barred by the Land Use Act'. The dispute arose over two properties, Oiteil-De-Madel and Levelechy Aradi, belonging to the comunidade of Tivim, which were leased to tenants in 1978. After the tenants' predecessor was declared an agricultural tenant by a trial court in 2017, the comunidade appealed against the decision. During the pendency of the appeal, the comunidade's general body meeting in March 2021 resolved to compromise by offering a 60:40 land division — 60% to the tenants and 40% to be retained by the comunidade. However, the administrative tribunal denied permission for this compromise under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades, which requires the tribunal's approval for any compromise involving comunidades. The high court upheld this decision, which was subsequently challenged in the SC. The apex court observed that the proposed compromise constituted an 'abuse of the process of law'. The court said that the consent terms effectively granted 'full ownership rights' to both parties and allowed them to use the land 'for any purpose whatsoever', directly violating statutory restrictions. Justice Dhulia, writing for the bench, observed that the compromise would 'wipe out tenancy rights' that were legally declared by the trial court and bypass the specific procedures laid down in the Tenancy Act for the termination of tenancy and purchase of land by tenants.
