Ensure ashram-like compassionate atmosphere in jails: Gujarat HC to authority
Justice H D Suthar, while ordering the release of a convict detained in Vadodara's central jail for over two months longer than his punishment and awarding him compensation, stated in his order, "It is hoped that the jail authorities will treat all inmates with humanity and sensitivity, following the Model Jail Manual, and do the needful for the rehabilitation of convicts and prisoners. The Inspector General of Prisons shall ensure that a friendly and compassionate atmosphere, akin to 'ashram,' is required to be created within the jails.
" Expressing this hope, the judge quoted Mahatma Gandhi's statement, "The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others."
This happened in a petition filed by a prisoner, Raju Ninama, through advocate A A Zabuawala, who complained that his client was not released from prison even after he served his sentence. The HC summoned the jail officials, including the superintendent Usha Rada, and reprimanded them for this lapse.
It ordered the immediate release of the prisoner and said, "In this case, the jail authorities, instead of following the clear directions in the warrant, unilaterally reduced the set-off period, resulting in the petitioner undergoing an additional 2 months and 8 days of illegal detention, which amounts to wrongful confinement and a violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Such wrongful confinement, stemming from arbitrariness and highhandedness, reflects a complete disregard for the fundamental rights of the convict."
You Can Also Check:
Ahmedabad AQI
|
Weather in Ahmedabad
|
Bank Holidays in Ahmedabad
|
Public Holidays in Ahmedabad
The jail superintendent agreed to pay Rs 50,000 compensation to the prisoner. The HC further stated, "Article 51A of the Constitution enjoins all citizens to show compassion toward living beings. Jail inmates, although convicts, do not lose their fundamental rights. Despite repeated opportunities, the authorities failed to act with empathy and continued with their illegal and arbitrary approach."
The HC directed all judicial officers, who are jail visitors, that "…they must verify jail records to ensure that no undertrial prisoners or convicts remain illegally detained even for a minute beyond the completion of their sentence or granting of bail." Further, the authorities are directed "to undertake a comprehensive exercise to recalculate the set-off period for all convicts as per their respective conviction warrants.
After due verification, updated admission cards/tickets of convicts and relevant jail records shall be prepared in accordance with the circular dated Aug 1, 2025."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
Row over BJP ex-spokesperson's nomination as Bombay HC judge reaches Parliament. Who is Aarti Sathe
A day after the collegium's decision, Trinalmool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Saket Gokhale posted on X: 'Supreme Court collegium has recommended the name of lawyer Aarti Sathe for elevation as a judge of the Bombay High Court. Just curious because there's an Adv Aarti Sathe who has been a spokesperson of Maharashtra BJP.' On 28 July, the Supreme Court Collegium approved the appointment of Aarti Arun Sathe, once a Maharashtra BJP spokesperson, as a high court judge, which sparked a row as the Opposition raised concerns over whether she would be impartial as a judge. Mumbai: The controversial nomination of an advocate for judgeship at the Bombay High Court has now reached Parliament, with Congress MP Hibi Eden moving an adjournment motion to discuss the matter in the Lok Sabha. Supreme Court collegium has recommended the name of lawyer Aarti Sathe for elevation as a judge of the Bombay High Court. Just curious because there's an Adv Aarti Sathe who has been a spokesperson of Maharashtra BJP. Legal fraternity – same person or just similar names? — Saket Gokhale MP (@SaketGokhale) July 29, 2025 Earlier this week, others in the Opposition in Maharashtra began voicing their concerns. Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar) MLA Rohit Pawar wrote on X: 'The appointment of a person who advocates for the ruling party from a public platform as a judge is the greatest blow to democracy. The judge is a highly responsible position which should be impartial. When someone is appointed as judge from the ruling party, it raises a serious question mark on neutral position and also democratic process…' The Bharatiya Janata Party, however, clarified that the allegations are unfounded, and that her appointment is based on merit. Keshav Upadhye, chief spokesperson of Maharashtra BJP, said she had resigned from the party a year and half ago. 'She now has no connection with the BJP. The Congress party and Rohit Pawar are criticising her recommendation, which was made as per the decision of the judges' Collegium,' he posted on X. After resigning from the BJP, Aarti Sathe was recommended as a judge of the High Court after one and a half years. She now has no connection with the BJP. The Congress party and Rohit Pawar are criticizing her recommendation , which was made as per the decision of the judges'… — Keshav Upadhye (@keshavupadhye) August 5, 2025 Congress's state unit president Harshwardhan Sapkal also questioned Sathe's nomination. 'Democracy and the Constitution have been systematically sidelined in the country since 2014,' he said. 'All autonomous institutions are operating under government directives, even the Election Commission of India. But the most serious and worrying development is within the judiciary itself.' ThePrint attempted to reach Sathe via call, but she declined to comment on the matter. Also Read: Come to Maharashtra & speak—3 women MPs hold Nishikant Dubey to task over 'patak ke marenge' remark Who is Aarti Sathe? Sathe was affiliated with BJP Mumbai, and was appointed as a spokesperson in 2023. She was previously made a panelist for media interactions in 2020. She was also the head of the party's Legal cell. However, she had resigned from the position on 6 January, 2024, and also from the party's primary membership that year. 'I wish to be relieved from the responsibility as the head-legal cell BJP Mumbai for personal and professional reasons,' she had written in a letter addressed to Mumbai BJP chief Ashish Shelar, a copy of which is with ThePrint. Sathe has been a lawyer for the last 20 years, and has mainly dealt with matters linked to direct and indirect taxes, along with issues related to Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) before the Bombay High Court. As party spokesperson, she often appeared in media debates on issues related to Mumbai. In debates on television news channels, she regularly spoke about the alleged mismanagement in the BMC (Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation), the condition of dilapidated buildings in the city, or the condition of roads. Back in 2016, in a conversation with Mirror Now, she had defended demonetisation, saying that it would help clean up the corruption in BMC and MHADA (Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority). She had also spoken against the Maha Vikas Aghadi government in 2021 when Shah Rukh Khan's son Aryan Khan had been arrested in a drug bust, accusing the then cabinet minister Nawab Malik of the undivided NCP of trying to influence the case. Referring to such statements by Sathe in the past, Rohit Pawar told media persons Wednesday, 'She has in the past taken the side of one party vociferously. So we want to request the Supreme Court Collegium to stop this proposal. We don't have doubt over her merit or capability. But looking at the current political scenario, question arises if common people will get justice? We as Opposition continuously speak against the government, so if our case goes in front of this judge, will we get justice?' Arun Sathe's BJP-RSS link Much like the current row, a similar controversy had erupted back in 2015, when Sathe's father, Arun Sathe, who is also the brother of former Lok Sabha speaker Sumitra Mahajan, was appointed to the board of market regulator SEBI as a part-time member. Arun Sathe is also a lawyer, and has been a BJP worker with RSS background. He was a national executive member of the partyBJP, and held various positions in the student wing, ABVP. However, he had said at the time that he had been nominated by the finance ministry, and would do his job judiciously. '…I understand the differences between politics and market issues. As a lawyer, I will have views independent of biases,' he had told Business Standard in 2015. He had also said that he had been connected with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh since childhood, and had been a part of the party since its Jan Sangh days. In 1989, he had tried to contest Lok Sabha polls from the Mumbai North West constituency against Congress's Sunil Dutt, but had lost. (Edited by Mannat Chugh) Also Read: Farmers' crosshairs to 'rummy' row, NCP's Kokate loses agri ministry after string of controversies
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC judges take exception to order against HC judge
NEW DELHI: Top judges of Supreme Court have taken strong exception to the order passed on Tuesday by a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan castigating an Allahabad high court judge for lack of knowledge in criminal law and de-rostering him from hearing criminal cases for life, and are mulling steps to remedy an unpleasant situation created in breach of repeated SC rulings. A concerned Chief Justice of India B R Gavai consulted his senior colleagues and is now discussing ways and means to remedy the order that has created difficulties for the chief justice (CJ) of one of the oldest high courts of India, at Allahabad. SC has repeatedly ruled that the CJ of an HC is the master of the roster and he alone can allocate, roster and assign cases to single, division and three-judge benches in HC and that his discretion is not amenable to judicial orders. Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan ordered the Allahabad HC CJ to "immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned judge" and "make the judge sit in a division bench with a seasoned senior judge". They also said, "We further direct that the concerned judge shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office". Irrespective of the folly of the HC judge, SC, which gives primacy to principles of natural justice, passed the caustic and damaging order against the judge without giving him an opportunity to explain why he passed the impugned directive. Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan called the HC judge's order one of the worst they had come across in their tenures as SC judges, and said, "The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian judiciary at the level of HC." TOI spoke to a number of former CJIs, who too expressed concern over the manner in which the bench led by Justice Pardiwala proceeded to castigate the HC judge, stressing that errors in HC orders are not uncommon and are regularly appealed in SC. A judge's mistake in appreciating legal points or facts in a particular case cannot empower SC, while deciding appeals against an HC judgment, to castigate the judge who authored that judgment and take punitive measures like de-rostering him, which, the ex-CJIs said, was the sole prerogative of the HC CJ. Incidentally, the bench of Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan had fixed timelines for the President and governors to grant or refuse assent to bills passed by state assemblies, while granting "deemed approval" to bills pending with the TN governor. The President has since sent a reference to SC seeking its opinion on whether the apex court has the power to fix timelines for her and governors when the Constitution does not provide for the same, and whether SC can use powers under Article 142 to grant deemed approval to bills. In the case of Braj Kishore Thakur vs. Union of India (1997), SC had ruled: "Higher courts must remind themselves constantly that higher tiers are provided in the judicial hierarchy to set right errors which could possibly have crept in findings or orders of courts at the lower tiers. Such powers are certainly not for belching diatribe at judicial personages in lower cadre. It is best to remember the words of a jurist that 'a judge who has not committed any error is yet to be born'. .." In Rajasthan vs Prakash Chand (1997), another three-judge bench said "that the administrative control of HC vests in the chief justice alone. On the judicial side, however, he is only the first amongst equals. The CJ is the master of the roster. He alone has the prerogative to constitute benches of the court and allocate cases to the benches so constituted. The puisne judges can only do that work as is allotted to them by the chief justice or under his directions. No judge or judges can give directions to the Registry for listing any case before him or them which runs counter to the directions given by the chief justice." This ruling was made applicable to SC by a three-judge bench's judgment in 2018.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
"Sexual Violence By Parent Tears Through Foundational Fabric Of Familial Trust": Top Court
New Delhi: Observing incestuous sexual violence by a parent "tears through" the foundational fabric of familial trust, the Supreme Court has upheld a man's punishment for raping his minor daughter. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Kumar called the dignity of women "non-negotiable" while asking the legal system not to permit repeated intrusion into that dignity under the "guise of misplaced sympathy" or purported "procedural fairness". Justice, the August 4 order said, must not be limited to conviction and must include restitution. The top court further directed Rs 10.50 lakh to be paid to the survivor as compensation under the state of Himachal Pradesh. "Incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of offence that tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust and must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence. The home, which should be a sanctuary, cannot be permitted to become a site of unspeakable trauma, and the courts must send a clear signal that such offences will be met with an equally unsparing judicial response," the order read. The apex court said entertaining a plea for leniency in a case of this nature would not merely be misplaced, it would constitute a betrayal of the court's own constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable. "When a child is forced to suffer at the hands of her own father, the law must speak in a voice that is resolute and uncompromising. There can be no mitigation in sentencing for crimes that subvert the very notion of family as a space of security," the bench said. The top court was acting on the appeal of the man against a Himachal Pradesh High Court decision upholding his conviction and sentence under Section 6 (sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC. The court said such offences deserve severest condemnation and deterrent punishment. To pardon such depravity under any guise would be a travesty of justice and a betrayal of the child protection mandate embedded in our constitutional and statutory framework, the verdict added. The bench went on to quote Manusmriti, as saying, 'Yatra nāryastu pūjyante ramante tatra devatā, yatraitaastu na pūjyante sarvāstatra aphalā kriyā (where women are honoured, divinity flourishes and where they are dishonoured, all acts become fruitless)." The top court said this verse reflects not merely a cultural principle but a constitutional vision. The court rejected the man's prayer for interim bail saying, "Our judicial conscience does not permit casual indulgence in a prayer for interim relief of bail where the conviction has been rendered." The bench said entertaining petition would mean betrayal of the constitutional promise made to every child in the country. "It would be a judicial insult to the sanctity of womanhood and a blow to every mother who teaches her child to believe in justice." The order continued, "When a father who is expected to be a shield, a guardian, a moral compass, becomes the source of the most severe violation of a child's bodily integrity and dignity, the betrayal is not only personal but institutional. The law does not, and cannot, condone such acts under the guise of rehabilitation or reform." PTI PKS PKS AMK AMK
