Nagpur Jail Superintendent sentenced to 7-days in jail by Bombay High Court for selectively denying parole to prisoners

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently sentenced Nagpur Central Prison's Superintendent, Anupkumar Kumre, to seven days in jail for contempt of court after finding that he had selectively denied prisoners emergency parole during the COVID-19 pandemic [Hanuman Anandrao Pendam vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.].A Bench of Justices Vinay Deshpande and Amit Borkar expressed its concerns over selective application of the binding precedent of the High Court in Milind Ashok Patil & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra."Selective compliance of binding precedent not only has the adverse effect on rights of poor prisoners and affects the faith of prisoners in the administration of justice but also lowers the dignity of the Court by conveying that binding precedents of this Court can be selectively circumvented so as to frustrate the very object of such law of precedent, thereby undermining the dignity of the Court," the Court said. It found the superintendent's actions violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution."If the Court finds that the Government's action in rejecting the grant of parole to a prisoner has the effect of suffocating the Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India, in that case, the Court must act to restore the rule of law and respect the residuary fundamental rights of the prisoners," it observed before slapping Kumre with a fine of ₹5,000 despite him tendering an unconditional apology. He was given ten weeks to seek relief from the Supreme Court..The High Court stated that accepting the apology would set a bad precedent and would encourage more such actions from jail superintendents in the future. It highlighted that the apology was tendered by Kumre only after his justifications failed."It is a well-settled principle of law that for being accepted, an apology should be tendered at the initial stage of the contempt proceedings provided that the contemptuous act has not made a scar on the dignity or authority of the Court and has not interfered with the administration of justice," it explained..Kumre was ruled to be guilty of 41 counts of contempt of court as he not only rejected 35 eligible jail inmates' plea for emergency parole during the COVID-19 pandemic but let out six ineligible inmates."The purpose of releasing a prisoner on parole or furlough is to reform him. When the prisoners are sent from jail to Society, their conduct is watched, and if they give a good account of themselves, the Rules provide that their sentence can be shortened. The purpose is also to give an opportunity to the prisoner to mix up with the members of his family and the Society so that he may feel that he is also a member of the Society," the Court observed. .The order was passed in a petition by a prisoner, Hanuman Pendam, who claimed that his request for parole during the Covid-19 epidemic was denied by the jail officer because he was 14 days late in returning to the jail when he was previously released on parole.The jail supervisor provided an affidavit in which he stated that 90 other offenders were denied emergency parole because they were not eligible under the regulations. He provided information on six detainees who arrived late after taking leave earlier..Amicus Curiae advocate Firdos Mirza pointed out that one prisoner's name was on the list of convicts who were released despite the fact that he had arrived seven days late during one his earlier paroles. Another prisoner overstayed his furlough by seven days but was nonetheless released.The Court ordered the Commissioner of Police and the Additional Chief Secretary (Jail and Prisons) to launch a departmental investigation for contempt after discovering multiple discrepancies in Kumre's affidavit.Advocate Shweta D Wankhede appeared for for the petitioner.Additional Public Prosecutor MK Pathan and advocate SV Sirpurkar appeared for the respondents. [Read Judgment]