Rajasthan High Court: In a bunch of petitions filed before this Court seeking the transfer of convict-prisoners, sentenced under the POCSO Act and Section of the (IPC), to Open Air Camps, a single-judge bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., noted that the two conflicting views is taken by the different Division Benches and Single Benches of this Court on the issue and referred the matter to the Special/Larger Bench so that the controversy is put to rest in accordance with law.
The main issue in the instant matter is that ‘whether a prisoner convicted and sentenced under the POCSO Act or Section can be shifted from jail to an Open-Air Camp?’ The petitioners submitted that the impugned issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh v. State of Rajasthan, , where the Court allowed such convicts to be shifted to Open Air Camps. The petitioners also referenced subsequent similar decisions including Asharam v. State of Rajasthan , where the Co-ordinate Bench decision had taken a similar view and passed orders for shifting of the convict. The petitioners further stated that the Supreme Court upheld the Co-ordinate Bench decision and rejected the State’s SLP. The petitioner referred to Narender v. State of Rajasthan and Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan , where the Court followed similar reasoning. The petitioners argued that different Single Benches and Division Benches have consistently allowed shifting of convicts under similar circumstances.
However, the State opposed the petitions and submitted that the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajit Singh (Supra) has been changed subsequently by the same Division Bench in Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan, , where the Court emphasised on the gravity of the offense under Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972. It was contended that shifting convicts of heinous offenses to Open Air Camps would compromise the safety of inmates and their families and create fear in the mind of the families of other inmates. The State cited Bhag Singh v. State of Rajasthan , and Vipin v. State of Rajasthan, , where the Division bench of this Court followed the similar reasoning.
The Court noted that Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules lists categories of prisoners who are “ordinarily” ineligible for transfer to Open Air Camps, including those convicted under severe sections of the IPC and special laws like the POCSO Act. The term “ordinarily” in Rule 3(d) has been subject to varied judicial interpretation. The Court stated that different interpretations of the term “ordinarily” had led to conflicting judgments by various benches of the Rajasthan High Court. Some judgments favored a liberal interpretation thereby permitting such transfers under specific conditions, while others emphasised on the gravity of offenses to justify exclusion.
The Court noted that this Court in Subhash Chand (Supra), held that the term “ordinarily” does not imply absolute prohibition, applications must be considered on merit and directed the authorities to evaluate applications for transfer to Open Air Camps if other conditions are satisfied. The Court noted that this Court in Ajit Singh (Supra) criticised extraneous factors like age and gender dynamics in the camp as irrelevant grounds for rejecting applications and directed that the convict’s transfer should be based on the merits of the case.
The Court noted that this Court in Rajendra (Supra) highlighted the importance of considering the gravity of offenses, especially heinous ones like those under the POCSO Act and emphasised on societal safety concerns and the rehabilitation environment of Open-Air Camps. The Court noted that this Court in Bhag Singh (Supra) reiterated the reasoning in Rajendra (Supra), stressed that convicts of heinous crimes cannot claim transfer to Open Air Camps as a right and upheld the Committee’s decision to reject transfer applications of such convicts.
The Court noted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Asharam (Supra) granted the transfer, disregarding prior rulings and then the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal, keeping the question of law open due to the peculiar facts of the case.
The Court noted that all the cases mentioned above were not assailed by any of the convict prisoners before the Supreme Court, hence the same has attained finality. The Court stated that the Coordinate Benches should not contradict earlier decisions without referring the matter to a larger Bench as held in Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane, and S. Kasi v. State, .
“Single Bench of the High Court or the Division Bench of the High Court if does not agree with the view taken by the Single Bench or the Division Bench of the same High Court respectively, it should refer the matter to the Larger Bench and the judicial propriety and decorum do not warrant him/them to take a different view.”
The Court asserted that the conflicting views necessitate referral to a larger bench for uniformity and until the same is resolved, decisions will hinge on whether the discretion implied in interpreting the word “ordinarily” can override concerns about gravity of offense and public safety. The Court referred the matter to the Special/Larger Bench so that the controversy is put to rest in accordance with law.
[Gangaram v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 706/2023, Decided on 06-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. BR Choudhary, Mr. Vishram Prajapati and Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA cum AAG with Mr. Aman Kumar, Counsel for the Respondents
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1895/2023.
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.291/2022, decided on 12-01-2023.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12020/2013, decided on 30-08-2013.
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.51/2022, decided on 24-08-2022.
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .