Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Defending the early release of former Bihar MP Anand Mohan who was serving life imprisonment for lynching Gopal Ganj DM G Krishnaiah in 1994, the Bihar government has told the Supreme Court that the victim’s status cannot be a factor to grant or refuse remission.
“The status of a victim cannot be a factor for grant or refusal of remission…the remission of the Respondent No.4 (Mohan) was considered in accordance with the policy and as per the procedure prescribed,” the affidavit stated.
The affidavit has been filed in response to a plea by the victim’s wife Uma Krishnaiah challenging the remission granted to Mohan who was released on April 24 after 14 years in jail. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and JK Maheshwari had earlier sought a response from the Bihar government, Anand Mohan and the Centre in the plea filed by Uma Krishnaiah.
She in her plea has challenged the circular dated April 10 issued by the Bihar Home Department (Prisons) which made persons convicted for the murder of a public servant eligible for remission and Mohan’s subsequent release. “It is a settled principle of law that the remission policy of the State framed either under CrPC or under Article 161 of the Constitution, the Judicial interference is very limited and only in rarest of rare cases,” the affidavit stated.
The Bihar government said 2012 prison rules were changed on April 10 to remove the prohibition against premature release of life convicts guilty of murdering public servants after heeding to a variety of relevant factors and the fact that no such distinction existed in the similar rules which were framed by other states such as Delhi, Punjab and Haryana.
“The punishment for the murder of the general public or a public servant is the same. On the one hand, the life convict prisoner guilty of murder of the general public is considered eligible for premature release and on the other hand, the life convict prisoner guilty of murder of a public servant is not eligible for consideration for premature release. The discrimination on the basis of the status of a victim was sought to be removed,” the affidavit had said.
Stating the state’s decision has been taken on extraneous considerations, Uma in her plea said the state while releasing Mohan ignored relevant factors such as the conduct of the prisoner in the jail, and past criminal antecedents. It has also been contended that the state’s amendment to its remission policy according to which it did not consider the fact of Mohan being convicted for the murder of public servants on duty is contrary to public policy and amounts to demoralising the public servants. The plea sought to apply the state policy which was prevalent at the time of the offence.
Also in top court
Speaker’s response sought on Sena pleaA Supreme Court bench led by the CJI on Friday sought Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar’s response in a petition filed by the Shiv Sena (Uddhav faction) within two weeks. The petition sought to direct the Speaker to expedite his decision on the disqualification pleas pending against Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and 15 other rebel Sena MLAs led by him.
Two new judges sworn in by CJIChief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Friday administered oath to Telangana High Court Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Kerala High Court’s S Venkatanarayana Bhatti, who were elevated as judges of the top court. Their names, recommended by the Supreme Court collegium, were cleared by the Central government on July 12, 2023. With this, the total strength of the Supreme Court has now increased to 32.
Lawyer’s protection from arrest extendedThe Supreme Court on Friday extended till July 17 the protection from arrest granted to a woman lawyer in connection with an FIR lodged by Manipur police over alleged utterances of the members of a fact-finding mission to the strife-torn state she was part of. On July 11, SC had protected lawyer Deeksha Dwivedi from arrest in connection with the FIR over reported comments by the team members that the ethnic violence in Manipur was “state-sponsored.”
‘Adipurush’ makers to be heard on July 21The Supreme Court will consider a plea of the makers of the ‘Adipurush’ movie on July 21. The filmmakers’ plea challenges the Allahabad High Court’s order asking them to personally appear before it on July 27, along with affidavits explaining their bonafide conduct. On the counsel emphasizing that the pleas are listed for July 21, the CJI agreed to ensure that the matter retains its place in the list dated July 21.
NEW DELHI: Defending the early release of former Bihar MP Anand Mohan who was serving life imprisonment for lynching Gopal Ganj DM G Krishnaiah in 1994, the Bihar government has told the Supreme Court that the victim’s status cannot be a factor to grant or refuse remission.
“The status of a victim cannot be a factor for grant or refusal of remission…the remission of the Respondent No.4 (Mohan) was considered in accordance with the policy and as per the procedure prescribed,” the affidavit stated.
The affidavit has been filed in response to a plea by the victim’s wife Uma Krishnaiah challenging the remission granted to Mohan who was released on April 24 after 14 years in jail. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and JK Maheshwari had earlier sought a response from the Bihar government, Anand Mohan and the Centre in the plea filed by Uma Krishnaiah.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
She in her plea has challenged the circular dated April 10 issued by the Bihar Home Department (Prisons) which made persons convicted for the murder of a public servant eligible for remission and Mohan’s subsequent release. “It is a settled principle of law that the remission policy of the State framed either under CrPC or under Article 161 of the Constitution, the Judicial interference is very limited and only in rarest of rare cases,” the affidavit stated.
The Bihar government said 2012 prison rules were changed on April 10 to remove the prohibition against premature release of life convicts guilty of murdering public servants after heeding to a variety of relevant factors and the fact that no such distinction existed in the similar rules which were framed by other states such as Delhi, Punjab and Haryana.
“The punishment for the murder of the general public or a public servant is the same. On the one hand, the life convict prisoner guilty of murder of the general public is considered eligible for premature release and on the other hand, the life convict prisoner guilty of murder of a public servant is not eligible for consideration for premature release. The discrimination on the basis of the status of a victim was sought to be removed,” the affidavit had said.
Stating the state’s decision has been taken on extraneous considerations, Uma in her plea said the state while releasing Mohan ignored relevant factors such as the conduct of the prisoner in the jail, and past criminal antecedents. It has also been contended that the state’s amendment to its remission policy according to which it did not consider the fact of Mohan being convicted for the murder of public servants on duty is contrary to public policy and amounts to demoralising the public servants. The plea sought to apply the state policy which was prevalent at the time of the offence.
Also in top court
Speaker’s response sought on Sena plea
A Supreme Court bench led by the CJI on Friday sought Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar’s response in a petition filed by the Shiv Sena (Uddhav faction) within two weeks. The petition sought to direct the Speaker to expedite his decision on the disqualification pleas pending against Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and 15 other rebel Sena MLAs led by him.
Two new judges sworn in by CJI
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Friday administered oath to Telangana High Court Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Kerala High Court’s S Venkatanarayana Bhatti, who were elevated as judges of the top court. Their names, recommended by the Supreme Court collegium, were cleared by the Central government on July 12, 2023. With this, the total strength of the Supreme Court has now increased to 32.
Lawyer’s protection from arrest extended
The Supreme Court on Friday extended till July 17 the protection from arrest granted to a woman lawyer in connection with an FIR lodged by Manipur police over alleged utterances of the members of a fact-finding mission to the strife-torn state she was part of. On July 11, SC had protected lawyer Deeksha Dwivedi from arrest in connection with the FIR over reported comments by the team members that the ethnic violence in Manipur was “state-sponsored.”
‘Adipurush’ makers to be heard on July 21
The Supreme Court will consider a plea of the makers of the ‘Adipurush’ movie on July 21. The filmmakers’ plea challenges the Allahabad High Court’s order asking them to personally appear before it on July 27, along with affidavits explaining their bonafide conduct. On the counsel emphasizing that the pleas are listed for July 21, the CJI agreed to ensure that the matter retains its place in the list dated July 21.
