Supreme Court Expunges HC Observations Against Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur

A Bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and A.S. Oka noted the submission of the Superintendent that he had an unblemished record of service since the last 20 years and the observation made by the High Court would have an adverse impact on his promotion and other service benefits. Considering he had already tendered an unqualified, unconditional and unequivocal apology and had taken full responsibility for the error and mistakes in the affidavit, the Bench thought it appropriate to expunge the observations.

"Since the unqualified apology has been tendered by the petitioner which has been taken on record and taking note thereof we consider appropriate to expunge the observations made by the High Court in paragraph nos.3 & 11 of the order impugned dated 25.11.2020."

An inmate applied for furlough, which is short-term temporary release from custody. The grant of furlough is to break the monotony of imprisonment and to enable the convict to maintain continuity with family life and integration with society. The High Court observed that the said application was rejected solely on the basis of the police inquiry report which did not disclose any reason other than that, he was undergoing sentence in a serious crime like murder. It was emphasised that the report was indeed incorrect as he was convicted for economic offences and not murder. Considering that there is no bar on release on furlough for convicts of economic offences, and the inmate was otherwise eligible, the High Court quashed the order rejecting the furlough application. It was further noted by the High Court that the application was decided by the jail authorities almost after 10 months, which is in contravention of the procedure prescribed by the Home Department Circular dated 01.08.2007.

On perusal of the reply affidavit filed by the Superintendent, the High Court had noted that it was misleading and takes additional ground not mentioned in the order rejecting the furlough application. In the affidavit it was stated that as per Government Resolution dated 08.05.2020 pertaining to release of the prisoners for the purpose of decongesting the jails in order to contain COVID 19 pandemic, grant of furlough to prisoners convicted for economic offences was prohibited. The High Court opined that it appears that while filing the affidavit the Superintendent took the issue personally and had acted upon his utter dislike for the concerned inmate. It further stated -

"3. …Being a public servant, it is expected of respondent No.2 to be fair in performance of his duty and treat all the inmates of the jail as well as his staff members with equality. But, that has not been done by the respondent No.2. This time we would not pass any order which may be adverse to the interest of respondent No.2, but, we would like to put respondent No.2 and the officers like him who are public servants on guard by what we have said just now."

As a word of caution, the High Court had remarked -

"11. The respondent No.2 is requested to be cautious in performing of his duty and refrain from any attempt from giving false information to the Court or misleading the Court while filing his reply on affidavit in future."

[Case Title: Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur v. Dy. Inspector General (Prisons) (East), Nagpur And Anr. SLP (Crl.) 10035 of 2021]

Click Here To Read/Download Supreme Court Order

Click Here To Read/Download High Court Judgment