Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Er.P.Veera Bhaarathi vs State Of Tamil Nadu . on 14 August, 2014
ä’ ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6481/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25/09/2012
in RA No. 65/2012 passed by the High Court of Madras at Madurai)
ER.P.VEERA BHAARATHI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln.(s) for directions to grant parole as interim relief
and office report)
Date: 14/08/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Adv.(AC)
Mr. R.V. Kameshwaran, Adv.
Mr. G. Ananda Selvam, Adv.
Mr. Ram Sankar, Adv.
Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Subramonium Prasad, AAG
Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna ,Adv.
A. Santha Kumaran, Adv.
Ms. Vanita C. Giri, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Our attention is drawn to the Order of this Court in Krishan & Others versus State of Haryana & Others with Criminal Appeal Nos. 973 of 2008 and 239 of 2014 dated 21-1-2014. Paragraphs 15, 16, and 17 of the said Order read as under:-
"15. In the background of the abovementioned facts, the respondent challenged the said exclusionary clause of the abovementioned G.O. on the ground that it is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.Signature Not Verified
16. By judgment under appeal (in Habeas Corpus Petition Digitally signed by No.1894 of 2008) dated 29th April 2009, the Division Bench of Vishal Anand Date: 2014.08.23 13:36:07 IST the Madras High Court opined that such an exclusionary Reason:
clause is "unreasonable restriction". The operative portion of -2- the order reads as follows:
"We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and done through entire materials available on record. The Government has taken a policy decision to release prisoners, who have completed 7 years of actual imprisonment as on 15.09.2008 on the eve of the Birth Centenary of Perarignar Anna on 15.09.2008 by imposing the above said condition, which is contrary to Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and hence, the same is struck down as it is an unreasonable restriction. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders, on the representation made by the writ petitioner or her son, the detenu herein, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
17. From the abovementioned facts, it can be seen that this appeal has nothing to do with the subject matter of the Criminal Appeal No.973 of 2008. Though we do not agree with the reasoning adopted by the High Court for allowing the writ petition, we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. The exclusionary clause creates an artificial class of convicts which is unsustainable tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Neither there is any rational basis for creation of such a class nor are we able to discern any legitimate purpose sought to be achieved by the State in creating such a class. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed."
It is clear from the above observations of this Court that exclusionary clause contained in Government Order dated 11-9-2008 was found to be unsustainable tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu seeks time to obtain instructions on this aspect.
At his request, the Special Leave Petition is adjourned for a week.
(VISHAL ANAND) (INDU POKHRIYAL)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER