Introduction:

In a recent development at the Bombay High Court, Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande criticized the Maharashtra government for failing to adhere to its own guidelines regarding the premature release of prisoners. The case centered on Papa Rathod, who was convicted in 2009 for the rape of his minor daughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. Rathod’s legal team argued that under the state’s policy, he should have been eligible for premature release due to the length of time served and the remission earned. The High Court’s criticism reflects broader concerns about the enforcement of legal policies and the rights of prisoners.

Arguments:

Papa Rathod’s counsel, Advocate Nitin Gaware Patil, presented a compelling argument for Rathod’s premature release based on the state’s own guidelines. Patil emphasized that Rathod had already served 15.5 years of his life sentence, exceeding the 20-year minimum required for eligibility under the state’s premature release policy. According to the policy, convicts sentenced to life imprisonment can be considered for premature release if they serve a specific number of years and meet certain criteria. Patil argued that Rathod had met these requirements through a combination of time served and remission earned. He contended that the State’s refusal to categorize Rathod for early release was a clear violation of the established policy, which was designed to ensure fairness and consistency in the treatment of prisoners.

Patil’s argument also focused on the principle that the State’s guidelines should be uniformly applied and that deviations from these guidelines without proper justification were unlawful. He highlighted that Rathod’s crime, while serious, did not exclude him from the eligibility criteria outlined in the policy, which was meant to apply to all life imprisonment sentences except those specified under special legislation like TADA or MCOCA.

The State’s legal team, arguing against Rathod’s release, contended that Rathod was not eligible for premature release because his conviction involved a “heinous crime.” They maintained that despite the guidelines, certain crimes, especially those deemed particularly grievous, might warrant exceptions from standard policies. The State argued that Rathod’s crime was severe enough to disqualify him from the benefits of premature release as outlined in the State’s policy.

The State’s position was also based on an interpretation of the policy that sought to exclude individuals convicted of heinous crimes from its benefits. This interpretation was challenged by the petitioner’s counsel, who argued that the policy was clear and specific about eligibility criteria and that such interpretations were inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the guidelines.

Court’s Judgment:

The Bombay High Court’s division bench, consisting of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande, expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Maharashtra government’s approach to the premature release guidelines. The bench highlighted that the State had failed to adhere to its own policy, resulting in Rathod’s continued incarceration despite being eligible for release under the guidelines.

Justice Dangre’s remarks were pointed and critical, emphasizing that the repeated failures to follow legal protocols reflected poorly on the State’s administration of justice. The Court ordered the Additional Chief Secretary of the State’s Home Department to file a personal affidavit clarifying whether the State intended to adhere to its policy on premature release or to abandon it altogether. The Court’s directive was a last opportunity for the State to rectify its failure to follow its own guidelines or face potential financial penalties in the future.

The Court’s decision to call for a personal affidavit from the highest officer in the Home Department underscored the seriousness of the situation and the Court’s intent to ensure that legal policies are enforced fairly and consistently.