![HC raps Maharashtra policy on premature release of prisoners](https://th-i.thgim.com/public/incoming/3gjrjj/article68189444.ece/alternates/LANDSCAPE_1200/IMG_iStock-121586241_2_1_HMCNQSUP.jpg)
HC raps Maharashtra policy on premature release of prisoners
The Hindu
Bombay High Court criticizes Maharashtra Government for not following protocols on premature prisoner release, demands clarification in affidavit.
The Bombay High Court on July 2 rapped the Maharashtra Government for their failure to follow their own protocols on the premature release of prisoners. A division bench of judges, Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, pulled up the State Government and said, “Time and again, this court and the Supreme Court have said that the State must adhere to its guidelines and cannot exercise any prerogative. Yet we are coming across so many matters wherein you are not adhering to your own policy. So, let’s rest on the issue now. Either you (State) adhere to your policy or just do away with it.” The judges were hearing a plea filed by a person named Papa Rathod, who was convicted in May 2009. He was convicted of raping his minor daughter and sentenced to life imprisonment.
As per Maharashtra’s guidelines, for a life imprisoned convict to become eligible for premature release, their life imprisonment is counted as per the number of years prescribed in the said categories of the policy.
Representing Rathod, advocate Nitin Gaware Patil argued before the court that, as of date, Rathod had served 15 and a half years in prison. “The policy provides for 10 years remission. So, if Rathod’s remission and time served in prison are added together, it shows that he has served 25 years in prison, which is beyond the 20-year eligibility as per the State’s policy. In such a scenario, he must be given the benefit of premature release.”
The bench ordered the Additional Chief Secretary of the State Home Department to file an affidavit clarifying the State’s stand on the issue. “Let the highest officer file his personal affidavit. The affidavit should clearly state whether the policy will be adhered to or not. And this is the last chance; otherwise in future we will not hesitate to impose costs,” Justice Dangre said.