Madras High Court
Saravanan vs The State Represented By Its; on 7 August, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
W.P.No.7542 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.P.No.7542 of 2024
Saravanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State represented by its;
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home (Prison-IV) Department, Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director General of Prisons,
Gandhi Irwin Road, CMDA Building,
2nd Tower, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3. The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector, Salem.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison at Salem,
Hasthampatty, Salem – 7 ... Respondents
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7542 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Certiorified mandamus to call for the records pertaining in the impugned
order in G.O.(D) No.1106, dated 02.10.2021 passed by the 1st respondent and
quash the same and directing the 4th respondent to release the petitioner/convict
namely Mr.Saravanan S/o. Sundaram(CT No.7584) who is confining at Central
Prison, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr. V. Parthiban,
for Mr M. Mohamed Saifulla
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The order of the Government issued in G.O.(D)No.1106, Home(Prison-IV)
Department, dated 02.10.2021 rejecting the request of the petitioner/life convict
prisoner No.7584/, Saravanan, S/o. Sundaram, seeking premature release, confined
in Central Prison, Salem, at present is under challenge in the present writ
proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The petitioner, who is the life convict, had submitted an application for
premature release. The application was considered by following due process under
the Scheme. The Government passed the impugned order in G.O.(D).No.1106
Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 02.10.2021 stating that the prison behaviour
of the life convict prisoner is not good. The Government, while examining the
request of the writ petitioner/life convict seeking premature release, made a finding
that he was concerned in Omalur Police Station Crime No.1350 of 1997 and was
convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302(5 counts)
of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment under
Section 3 of the Indian Explosive Act and to undergo one year Rigorous
Imprisonment under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code by the 1
Additional Sessions Court, Salem in Session Case No.34 of 1999 dated
20.10.2004. Pertinently, the Government found that the prison behaviour of the
above life convict prisoner is not good and he was punished more than once for the
prison offences during his incarceration and the prevailing situation in the area is
not conducive for his premature release. Both the life of the convict and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
victims family is in danger if he is set on larger. Thus, the application for premature
release was rejected by the Government.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the
relevant records were not considered by the Government. He relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl.A.No.144 of 2020 in the
case of the Home Secretary (Prison) and others /vs/ Nilofer Nisha, wherein in
paragraph 32, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made an observation that the authorities
must pass a reasoned order in case they refused to grant benefit under the scheme
for premature release. Once a reasoned order is passed, then obviously, the
detenue has a right to challenge that order but that again would not be a Writ of
Habeas Corpus, but would be more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari. In such
cases, where reasoned orders have been passed the High Court may call for the
record of the case, examine the same and after examining the same in the context
of the parameters of the scheme decide whether the order rejecting the prayer for
premature release is justified or not. In the context of the said observation, the
learned counsel for the petitioner would urge this Court that the entire records
sought to be called for by this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.We found such an exercise may not be required in view of the clear
findings made in the impugned, where, it is stated that the life convict prisoner
/petitioner has completed 14 years of actual imprisonment as on 08.08.2015.
Therefore, his case was placed before Advisory Board meeting held on 29.11.2017
and the Advisory Board has rejected his premature release application and the
relevant portion runs as follows:
“ The probation Officer, Omalur vide his letter dated
31.08.2016 stated that the life convict prisoner No.7584, Saravanan,
son of Sundaram is a history sheeter. There will be danger to the life
of witness in the case by the prisoner if released and he may create
law and order problem in the area and hence, he has not
recommended for his premature release. The District Collector, Salem
vide letter dated 23.10.2017 has not recommended for his premature
release. The Superintendent of Police in his report dated 19.07.2016
has stated that the life of the convict will be in danger by the victims
and also living of the victims family will be in danger by the convict.
Hence, the Superintendent of Police has objected for his premature
release. The Advisory Board has not recommended for his premature
release based on the reports of Probation Officer and Police. Further,
his conduct in Prison is not good and punished for more than once for
the prison offences. Further, it is clear from the Probation Officer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
report that the prevailing situation in the area is not conducive for his
premature release. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem has
also concurred with the views of the Advisory Board.”
5.The contention of the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the affidavit that he had
completed nearly 21 years of imprisonment in Central Prison is not true. Based on
the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, dated 08.09.2016 in
Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2016 and orders rendered in Epuru Sudhakar &
Another Vs. Government of A.P. & Others, dated 11.10.2006, Maru Ram &
Others Vs Union of India & Another, dated 11.11.1980 and Union of India Vs
Srihararan @ Murugan and others, the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.(Ms)
No.64, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018 as amended in G.O. (Ms)
No.302, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 03.05.2018 have framed certain
guidelines for the consideration of grant of remission to the life convict prisoners,
who have completed 10/20 years of actual imprisonment under Article 161 of the
Constitution of India in commemoration of the birth centenary celebration of
former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and among others
stipulated various conditions for examining the cases of eligible life convicts for
premature release on a case to case basis.
6.The case of petitioner was not considered for premature release and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rejected the same as per the above Government order and the Honourable Supreme
Court of India in W.P. (Criminal) No. 321 of 2018, dated 25.04.2019 in the case
of Rajan Vs The Home Secretary, Home Department of Tamil Nadu & Others held
as follows:-
“ 17................ In the present case however, the petitioner has
been convicted for offence under section 302(3 counts) and section
307(4 counts) and has been sentenced to life imprisonment on each
count. The question as to whether the petitioner should be granted
remission and premature release in respect of all the counts at one
stroke, is a matter to be considered by the appropriate Government in
exercise of power under sections 432 and 433 of Cr.P.c. We do not
wish to dilate on that aspect”
7.The respondents would submit that because of the brutal nature of offence
committed by the prisoner and his unsatisfactory conduct in prison, he is found not
eligible for premature release as per the conditions stipulated in G.O.(Ms) No.64,
Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018 as amended in
G.O.(Ms.)No.302 Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 03.05.2018. The
Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No. 64, stipulates that the prisoner's
behaviour should be satisfactory. Further, the 1 st respondent passed a Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order regarding prematurely release of the life convict prisoners on occasion of
113th Birthday of Peraringnar Anna, as per the G.O.(Ms) No.488, Home (Pri-IV)
Dept. Dated 15.11.2021. The relevant portion of the said G.O. runs as follows:
“2 (A) The life convicts who have completed 10 years of actual
imprisonment as on 15.09.2021 including those who were originally
sentenced to death by the Trial Court and modified to life sentence by
the Appellate Court (other than those whose convicts have been
commuted), may be considered for premature release subject to
satisfaction of the following conditions. . . . . . ”
In view of the abovesaid G.O., several convicts were released. But the petitioner
could not be released since he was convicted under Explosive Substances Act &
Arms Act. That provisions comes under the ineligible category in the abovesaid
G.O.Though the said period for ineligible sections had completed, benefit of the
above Government Orders has not extended.
8. The application seeking premature release was considered and rejected
by the Government in G.O.(D).No.1106 dated 02.10.2021 and the writ petition
was filed after a lapse of nearly 5 years, in the year 2024. Thus, the writ petition
itself is hit by the principles of latches.
9.The subjective satisfaction of the State Level Committee and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Government arrived need not be interfered by the High Court by exercise of the
Powers of the Judicial Review under Article 226 in the absence of any materials on
record to rebut the said findings. Therefore, the Power of Judicial Review need not
be exercised in such cases, where the subjective satisfaction of the authorities are
unambiguous clear and in accordance with the procedures as contemplated under
the Scheme and the Government Orders. In the present case, the petitioner could
not able to establish that the findings of the Government in the impugned order of
the year 2021 is perverse and that being the factum, we are not inclined to interfere
with the said order. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh
representation, if he is otherwise eligible, based on his subsequent conduct or
under any other Scheme, which is available to the petitioner.
With these liberty this writ petition is dismissed.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
07.08.2024
Index : Yes/No (½)
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
mrp
1. The State represented by its;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home (Prison-IV) Department, Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director General of Prisons,
Gandhi Irwin Road, CMDA Building,
2nd Tower, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3. The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector, Salem.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison at Salem,
Hasthampatty, Salem – 7.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
mrp
(½)
07.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
