‘Liberty…can't be bartered on technicalities': SC directs judicial probe into delay in releasing prisoner who got bail
Directing the inquiry, a bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N K Singh said, 'While episode is unfortunate. Each one of the stakeholders was aware what the offence was, what the crime number was, what the sections the applicant was charged with. In spite of this, the applicant has been sent on a spin and notwithstanding the order of this Court on April 29 (2025) and the release order of May 27 (2025), which to our mind was clear as daylight, the applicant has been released only on June 24 (2025).'
'Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed to a person. It cannot be bartered on these useless technicalities,' the bench said. It also directed the state of Uttar Pradesh to pay provisional compensation of Rs 5 lakh to the petitioner, Aftab, for loss of liberty due to the delay in releasing him.
'The authorities knew what the concerned section was and they themselves moved for correction. The net result is on this non-issue, the applicant has lost his liberty for at least 28 whole days. The only way we can remedy the situation is to order ad hoc monetary compensation… We order that the State of Uttar Pradesh pay a sum of Rs 5 lakh and report compliance on June 27,' the Supreme Court ordered.
The bench made it clear that the compensation already ordered 'will be provisional in nature' and that the final compensation amount would be calculated after the inquiry, and if any official is held responsible, the court would decide what portion of it should be paid by the official.
The court said, 'We only hope that no other convict/undertrial is languishing in jail on account of a similar technicality.' It added that the 'Director General (Prisons) has assured enquiry would be conducted on this aspect and it would be made sure that nobody suffers on this count.'
The accused was arrested for offences under section 366 (kidnapping or inducing woman to marry) of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/5(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. He approached the apex court, saying that he was not released as clause (1) of section 5 of the 2021 Act was not mentioned in the order, and sought modification of the April 29 order.
Hearing the matter on Tuesday, the Supreme Court asked the superintendent jailer of Ghaziabad district prison to appear before it in person, and the Uttar Pradesh director general of police (prisons) to appear through videoconferencing to ascertain what exactly happened.
On Wednesday, UP Additional Advocate General (AAG) Garima Prashad said the petitioner was released on Tuesday evening.
Justice Viswanathan, however, asked, 'Is sub-section not mentioned a valid ground to be taken by officers who are manning our prisons?' The court said that what needs to be looked into is the 'substance of the order' and not 'minor and irrelevant errors'.
'When there is no difficulty in identifying the prisoner and offences, nitpicking on court orders and on that pretext not implementing them and keeping the individual behind the bar would be a serious dereliction of duty,' the bench said in its order. 'If you keep people behind bars for this reason, what message are we sending?,' Justice Viswanathan asked, and wondered, 'What is the guarantee that many other people are not languishing for this reason?'
The DG (prisons) assured the court that prison officials would be sensitised so that such instances would never recur.
Prashad, meanwhile, referred to an Allahabad High Court judgment which said that release orders must be issued only after verifying the particulars. But the bench pointed out that the judgment dealt with an issue of forged orders.
The AAG said DG (prisons) has instituted an enquiry at the level of deputy inspector general (DIG) of police, Meerut. However, the court said that a judicial enquiry would be more appropriate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
24 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Order that undermines humanity
On August 11, the Supreme Court of India ordered the mass removal of dogs from the streets of the national capital region to control what was felt to be a rising dog menace. Nothing unites the city more than what the dogs do. From Lutyens Delhi to Pari Chawk and to the Galleria market in Gurugram, there have been loud voices against the order. The dog and Delhi share a spiritual connect. The Supreme Court, hearing a suo motu case over dog bites in national capital, directed that no stray canines will be released back.(Pixabay/Representative) At the centre of Delhi's humane, secular and decentralised culture, stands the 2023 ABC notification. It deletes the metaphor of 'stray' or awara and assigns ownership (community-owned) to all dogs and a habitat (streets) under section 7(2). The Order in contravention to this pre-existing legislation relegates the dog to the title of 'stray', not owned by anyone so they can be condemned to shelters. The Court is so shaken by the number of dog bites and rabies data that it neither authenticated it nor reason out through Audi alteram partem but quickly affixed it in a realm of human versus dog debate. In the process, a landmark judgement made by a previous Supreme Court Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol on May 9, 2024 is also rubbished as non-workable. One would wonder on how a judgement can generalise a temporary behavioural aberration of a species as sufficient reason to uproot it en masse from its natural habitat. Such generalisations are dangerous precedents for governance. Those of us working on dog cases at the trial courts have found that most anti-rabies vaccines are often administered by quacks sitting outside doctor's clinic. They ensure their earning by provoking fear against dogs amongst people. Detailed investigations at these courts have clearly shown the absence of rabies and serious dog bite among most people. Most dog bite cases are also shown as rabies cases. The plight of dog feeders has completely gone unheard. They have responsibly held spaces within a decentralised implementation mentioned in the 2023 ABC Rules. It also turns out to be the most cost-effective solution since the State being a parens patriae remains responsible for deworming, immunisation and sterilisation [u/s8(2)]. The ABC Rules u/s 3(1) also ensure quality as the animal welfare organisation ought to have obtained a Certificate of Project Recognition by the Board for Animal Birth Control on the basis of its requisite training, expertise, infrastructure and human resources. For an effective implementation of ABC, a monitoring committee is constituted u/s 9, which would meet once a month to take measures for controlling dog population, rabies and man-animal conflict. The Bench never attempted to delve into the sad reality that every local authority from the ward councillor upwards, is not really interested in ABC. The economics of shifting all dogs to the shelters is mind-boggling. A mass removal of dogs from streets would create irretrievable ecological harm. Monkeys, rats and dogs balance each other, to remove one is to strengthen the other. The judgement goes on to say that the dogs should suffer no harm, cruelty or injury but with minimal manpower and already overstuffed shelters, these dogs would have arbitrary and anarchic journey, alien masters and no health records. Untrained and whimsical wage earners as pickup boys, would not be segregating feeding mothers, sick and older dogs and puppies, so harm, injury, cruelty and death is inevitable. Those stronger ones who survive will struggle for existence and may escape from shelters as aggressive biting dogs. The shift to shelter homes is not only unethical but also bad economics. To construct one makeshift shelter for 200-300 dogs, one acre of land is required at a cost to about ₹5 crores and a year in construction time. Then to keep it well supplied every month, ₹500 a dog per day is needed for food, medical and manpower expenses. If Delhi-NCR has 10 lakh dogs in a rough estimate, the municipal authorities would need at least 4,000 acres of land, around ₹17,000 crore as initial funds and a stupendous amount as running cost of shelters. The shift to shelters may also not reduce street dogs. The ethnographic map of NCR is littered with lal dora villages which have never been a subject of any administrative concern for municipal authorities whether its disaster management, encroachment, fire safety or illegal businesses. Since lack of awareness is high in these areas, most dogs picked up from here (if picked up) would be lost or if they remain, they would soon re-fill the empty colonies of adjoining areas from where the dogs have been removed. In all circumstances, even 50% of removal is impossible despite putting the dogs through unnecessary pain and torture. In the end, the question that remains to be answered is whether dogs are a menace. We would recognise that mounds of garbage, potholed roads, city flooding, blocked drains, overflowing sewers, drugs addiction and deathly noise pollution are a menace. We need to take a step back and look at this whole issue with science as our guide. This article is authored by Amita Singh, former professor, Law & Governance, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
24 minutes ago
- First Post
Why India wants to ban online real-money games like fantasy sports, lotteries
The Centre introduced the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday. The proposed legislation seeks to ban online games played with money and impose stricter penalties on celebrity promoters. On the other hand, the government wants to promote e-sports and online social games India is planning to ban online games played with money, in a major setback for an industry that has attracted billions in investment but remains controversial. On Wednesday (August 20), Union Minister of Electronics and Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw introduced the Online Gaming Bill in the Lok Sabha. The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, seeks to prohibit real-money online gaming, imposing stricter penalties on such platforms and their celebrity promoters. It also aims to encourage e-sports and online social games. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Let's take a closer look. What's in the Online Gaming Bill? The Online Gaming Bill seeks to ban online gaming platforms, citing psychological and national security concerns. It defines 'online money game' as 'an online game, irrespective of whether such game is based on skill, chance, or both, played by a user by paying fees, depositing money or other stakes in expectation of winning which entails monetary and other enrichment in return of money or other stakes; but shall not include any e-sports'. If passed, the bill would outlaw all online betting and gambling, including fantasy sports and Poker, Rummy and other card games, as well as online lotteries, the Ministry of Electronics and IT said in a statement, as per ANI. Section 2(h) of the bill defines 'online money gaming service' as a service offered by a person for entering or playing an online money game. The proposed ban applies to all money-based online games, whether based on skill or chance, and advertisements for such platforms. The draft bill also prohibits banks and financial institutions from facilitating financial transactions on these gaming platforms. Violators can face up to three years in prison and a fine of up to Rs 1 crore for offering or facilitating online money gaming. The Centre's bill proposes to ban all money-based online games, whether based on skill or chance. Representational Image/Pixabay The bill also proposes punishing those promoting these platforms, such as social media influencers, who can be imprisoned for two years and face a penalty of Rs 50 lakh. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Major gaming platforms, such as Dream11, Games24x7, Winzo, GamesKraft, 99Games, MPL, KheloFantasy, and My11Circle will be directly hit by the proposed ban. E-sports to be promoted The Online Gaming Bill exempts e-sports from the ban. The government wants to recognise e-sports as a legitimate form of competitive sport in the country. To encourage e-sports, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports will set up a dedicated framework. The government could also mull promoting and recognising 'online social games' for educational and recreational purposes. While these could include a subscription fee for entry, there will be nothing in the form of a stake or wager. Notably, the Online Gaming Bill empowers authorised officials to conduct search operations at physical and virtual places, even without a warrant. '…any (authorised) officer…may enter any place, whether physical or digital, and search and arrest without warrant any person found therein who is reasonably suspected of having committed or of committing or of being about to commit any offence under this Act,' the Bill states. Why ban on online money gaming The government says it wants to ban such online games as they cause financial harm and are addictive. As per the Bill, the unregulated expansion of online money gaming services has been associated with 'unlawful activities including financial fraud, money-laundering, tax evasion, and in some cases, the financing of terrorism, thereby posing threats to national security, public order and the integrity of the State'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It said the law was needed due to the 'deleterious and negative impact of online money games on the individuals, families, society and the nation and given the technical aspects including the very nature of the electronic medium used for online money games, the algorithms applied and the national and transnational networks.' Reflecting the Government's commitment to a safe, secure, and innovation-driven Digital India, the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025 strikes a balanced path—encouraging innovation and youth engagement through safe and positive online gaming, while firmly… — Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (@MIB_India) August 20, 2025 The Statement of Object and Reasons of the Bill read that 'the unchecked and widespread proliferation of online money games which readily accessible through mobile devices, computers, and the internet, and offering monetary returns in exchange for deposited funds has led to grave social, economic, and psychological consequences across the country'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'These platforms often promote compulsive and addictive behaviour, resulting in financial ruin, mental health disorders, and increasing incidents of fraud and exploitation', the Bill said, adding such games often use 'manipulative design features, addictive algorithms, bots and undisclosed agents, undermining fairness, transparency and user protection, while promoting compulsive behaviour leading to financial ruin'. Reactions to the proposed ban The government's plan to put a blanket ban on online money gaming has sparked criticism from various quarters. The All India Gaming Federation (AIGF) has warned of a devastating fallout for the industry if the bill is implemented without changes. Seeking Union Home Minister Amit Shah's intervention, it said there was a need for 'progressive regulation' and not a ban. 'Such a blanket prohibition would strike a death knell for this legitimate, job-creating industry, and would cause serious harm to Indian users and citizens. We firmly believe that progressive regulation and not prohibition is the way forward for the legitimate Indian industry. With your guidance, India can set a global example by building a safe, transparent, and thriving digital gaming ecosystem,' AIGF said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD An industry insider told that the government's approach is 'misguided' and could be more harmful than beneficial. 'A blanket ban will not protect Indians, it will harm them. It will kill jobs, drive users to illegal gambling, and violate the Constitution,' the source said, warning that a ban will only boost illegal offshore operators, which they described as 'one of the biggest national security threats to the country today.' India's online gaming industry is valued at $3.7 billion today, depending largely on real-money games (RMG). It is expected to further grow to $9.1 billion by 2029. Industry estimates that it creates Rs 31,000 crores in annual revenue and pays Rs 20,000 crores in direct and indirect taxes. The sector has attracted foreign direct investment of more than Rs 25,000 crore till June 2022. It also supports over two lakh direct and indirect jobs. E-sports stakeholders have hailed the bill, emphasising the need to draw a line between gaming and betting. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Speaking to Hindustan Times, Akshat Rathee, Co-founder and Managing Director of NODWIN Gaming, said: 'The government's intent to recognise and promote e-sports, as highlighted in the recent bill, is an encouraging step towards building a structured and globally competitive ecosystem. However, for this vision to truly materialise, it is critical that the terminology used in the bill, particularly the distinctions between e-sports, online gaming, online social gaming, and online money gaming be clearly defined and uniformly understood.' Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has also criticised the ban on online money gaming, saying it would only push the industry underground and bolster criminal networks. 'I had written a very long article on the argument that by banning online gaming we are simply driving it underground, whereas it could be a useful source of revenue for the government if we legalise it, regulate it and tax it,' he was quoted as saying by PTI. Tharoor also pointed out that several countries have analysed the issue in detail and concluded that regulation and taxation can generate funds for social causes, while prohibition merely enriches 'criminal mafias'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He said on X that the bill should at least have been referred to a parliamentary committee 'to consider all the pros and cons before rushing it into law'. With inputs from agencies
NDTV
24 minutes ago
- NDTV
Everything You Need To Know About Online Gaming Bill 2025
The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025 was passed in the Lok Sabha today. The proposed law seeks to encourage e-sports and social games, while prohibiting real money gaming and online betting that could lead to addiction, financial loss, and security risks. Online Gaming Bill 2025: What It Aims To Do Encourage Positive Gaming: Promote e-sports and safe social or educational games. Ban Risky Money Games: Stop online gambling, betting, and real money games that can cause addiction or financial loss. Protect Citizens and Security: Safeguard users, especially youth, from fraud, money laundering, and other online risks. Support Innovation: Provide rules and guidelines to grow India's gaming industry responsibly. Provisions Of The Bill E-sports: Recognised as a legitimate sport; Ministry of Sports to set guidelines, run awareness campaigns, and support training academies and research centres. Social and Educational Games: Government can register and support safe, age-appropriate games that promote skill, culture, and digital literacy. Harmful Online Money Games: Complete ban on money games, their promotion, and related financial transactions; unlawful platforms can be blocked. Online Gaming Authority: Central government to oversee gaming, categorise games, determine money games, handle complaints, and issue guidelines. Offences And Penalties Offering/facilitating online money gaming: up to 3 years imprisonment and/or Rs 1 crore fine. Advertising money games: up to 2 years imprisonment and/or Rs 50 lakh fine. Financial transactions related to money games: up to 3 years imprisonment and/or Rs 1 crore fine. Repeat offences: 3-5 years imprisonment and fines up to Rs 2 crore. Certain offences are cognisable and non-bailable. Officers may investigate, search, and seize digital/physical property linked to offences. Powers to enter, search, and arrest without warrant in certain cases. Companies and officers held liable unless due diligence is proven. Independent or non-executive directors not involved in decision-making are protected. Pros Of The Bill Boosts Creative Economy: Positions India as a global hub for gaming exports, innovation, and jobs. Empowers Youth: Encourages skill-based gaming and e-sports participation. Ensures Safety: Protects families from predatory real-money gaming. Global Leadership: Strengthens India's role in responsible gaming and digital policy. Criticism Surrounding The Bill Opposition leaders have criticised the bill for being rushed, lacking stakeholder consultation, and potentially undermining regulation. Congress MP Karti Chidambaram said on X, "The proposed online gaming bill, The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025 is being introduced without industry consultation, is a knee-jerk reaction that could prove counterproductive... The government should refer the bill to a select committee and hold public hearings to ensure a balanced and informed approach." Congress leader Priyank Kharge argued that regulation was a better solution than banning something altogether. He said, "Regulation is the only way to safeguard our citizens, without it, they'll be pushed to playing on offshore servers in China or other countries which is beyond our reach of protection." Congress MP Shashi Tharoor spoke to reporters about the lack of proper parliamentary debate. "In my view, many countries have studied this issue in great detail and concluded that legalising and taxing online gaming allows governments to generate funds that can be used for various worthy causes... With Parliament not functioning effectively, the bill will likely be passed without any proper discussion," he said. Cons Of The Bill Industry and Jobs at Risk: According to Priyank Kharge, over 2,000 gaming startups and more than 2 lakh IT, AI, and design jobs could be affected. Karti Chidambaram has said that up to 4 lakh jobs may be at risk due to the bill. Threat to Foreign Investment: The bill could wipe out $6 billion in investments and push users to offshore platforms, Mr Chidambaram said. Revenue and Tax Loss: India could lose around Rs 20,000 crore annually from GST and income tax, as per Mr Chidambaram. Online gaming is currently subject to 28% GST and 30% tax on net winnings. Underground Markets And Addiction: Banning online gaming may push users to unregulated platforms, increasing the risk of illegal activities. National Security Risks: Offshore platforms may facilitate money laundering, terror financing, and data theft. Ecosystem Collapse: Priyank Kharge said Rs 7,000 crore spent annually on ads, data centres, sponsorships, and cybersecurity could vanish, affecting India's gaming innovation. Policy Concerns: A blanket ban without stakeholder consultation may create illegal markets and threaten national security.
