The Governor of Tamil Nadu, exercising powers under Article 161 of the Constitution, got a government order issued wherein a Scheme was framed for considering the cases of pre-mature release of convicted prisoners on the occasion of the Birth Centenary of Shri M.G. Ramachandran, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00a0Under which, a State level committee and District committees were constituted. The District committees were to consider the cases of the prisoners and send their recommendations to the Range Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Regional Probation Officer who, after examination of the same, were to send the same to the State level committee along with the recommendations.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00a0Prisoners convicted for certain offences or for offences under certain Acts would not be eligible for benefit under the Scheme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00a0The petitions for habeas corpus were filed by prisoners convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment in murder cases on the ground that the State has not given benefit of the premature release referred to above to the petitioners whereas many others have been given the benefit.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The HC observed that there is no issue on the fact that the convicted prisoners are entitled to release under the government order but according to the Probation Officer\u2019s report they were denied the benefit of the order as it would be dangerous for the lives of the convict prisoners. Further, the detenu could not be denied release on the ground that the life of the detenu was in danger. However, it is directed that the detenu be informed that his life may be in danger while releasing him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This order of High Court has transgressed the jurisdiction conferred upon it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while issuing the writ of habeas corpus and the matter was brought before the SC to determine the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the High Court while dealing with the writ of habeas corpus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court noted the already settled principles of the writ:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The bench observed that the grant of remission or parole is not a vested right of the prisoner. The Court added that the\u00a0High Court\u00a0should not have directed the release of the detained forthwith without initially directing the competent authority to decide on the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, the Bench invoked\u00a0Article 142\u00a0and ordered the release of prisoners in some appeals.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
HOME SECRETARY (PRISON) vs. H. NILOFER NISHA\u00a0Cri. Appeal 144-148 OF 2020 Facts \u2013 The Governor of Tamil Nadu, exercising powers under Article 161 of the Constitution, got a government order issued wherein a Scheme was framed for considering the cases of pre-mature release of convicted prisoners on the occasion of the Birth Centenary of Shri […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":167,"featured_media":541,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[69,26],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n