A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Honourable Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Honourable Justice Sunder Mohan stated that the premature release of 13 prisoners convicted on account of caste-based violence had no procedural lapse and that it was not the duty of the High Court acting as an appellate authority to interfere with such a government order.
Brief Facts:
The present writ petition challenged the premature release of 13 life convicts who had been convicted for offences under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC after they attacked a bus and injured 6 people from the Scheduled Caste including the President and Vice-President of the village panchayat. The convicts were released pursuant to the decision taken by the State Government to grant amnesty to life convicts completed 10 years of imprisonment.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the order leading to the premature release of the convicts is arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory. The counsel also urged that the Court take into consideration the fact that the village had a history of severe caste discrimination and this premature release would cause a threat to the safety to the victim’s family.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel for the official respondents submitted that due process had been followed in the passing of the Government Order and it there was nothing improper in the premature release of the convicts.
Observations of the Court:
The Court, after close scrutiny of the documents, observed that the objections from the side of the victims and the behavior of the prisoners had been taken into account and the due procedure for this Government Order had been followed, and that it was not necessary for the State to disclose reasons for satisfaction. The Court reproduced a previous judgment where it had been held that the Court cannot intervene with an administrative decision taken by the Government by acting as an appellate authority.
Decision of the Court:
The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on the basis that the due procedure had been followed and there was no arbitrariness in the Government Order.
Case Title:
P. Rathinam vs The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Coram:
Honourable Dr. Justice G.Jayachandran
Honourable Justice Sunder Mohan
Case No.:
WP(MD) No. 24324 & 25333 of 2019, WP(MD) No. 3431 of 2020
WMP(MD) No. 1643 of 2020 in WP(MD) No. 25333 of 2019
WMP(MD) No. 2884 of 2020 in WP(MD) No. 3431 of 2020
Advocate for the Petitioner:
Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy [in W.P.(MD)No.24324 of 2019 and W.P.(MD)No.3431 of 2020]
Mr. A. C. Asai Thambi [in W.P.(MD)No.25333 of 2019]
Advocate for the Respondent:
Mr. N. R. Elango [For Respondents 1 – 3 in W.P.(MD)No.24324 of 2019 and Respondents 1 – 5 in W.P.(MD)No.25333 of 2019 and Respondents 1- 4 in W.P.(MD)No.3431 of 2020]
Mr. V. Karthick [For Respondents 4, 7, 10 and 11 in W.P.(MD)No.24324 of 2019 and Respondent 9, 12, 14 and 16 in W.P.(MD)No.25333 of 2019 and Respondent 15 in W.P.(MD)No.3431 of 2020]
Mr. S. Kanagarajan [For Respondents 12, 13, 15 and 16 in W.P.(MD)No.24324 of 2019 and
Respondent 15, 17 and 18 in W.P.(MD)No.25333 of 2019]
Mr. Y. Jagadeesh [For Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 in W.P.(MD)No.25333 of 2019]
Mr. R. Alagumani [For Respondents 19 – 24 in W.P.(MD)No.25333 of 2019]
Read Judgment ;
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments