Supreme Court Orders Surrender of Prisoners Released on Emergency Parole During COVID-19 Pandemic: Director General (Prisons) vs. In Re: Contagion of Covid-19 Virus in Prisons (24 March 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 24 March 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 294
Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
The Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of whether prisoners released on emergency parole or interim bail during the COVID-19 pandemic should be required to surrender. This order came in response to an application by the Director General (Prisons), New Delhi, seeking directions for the surrender of these inmates as the COVID-19 situation has normalized. The bench, comprising Justices M. R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, unanimously decided that these prisoners must surrender.

Case Background

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court of India, in a Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 01/2020, directed all States and Union Territories to form High-Powered Committees. These committees were tasked with determining which prisoners could be released on parole or interim bail to reduce overcrowding in prisons and prevent the spread of the virus.

In compliance with the Supreme Court’s orders, the High-Powered Committee in Delhi released a total of 4,683 prisoners in the first phase of 2020. This included 1,184 convicts and 3,499 under-trial prisoners. Following a second wave of COVID-19, the Supreme Court directed the High-Powered Committee to grant a 90-day parole to all inmates previously released. Subsequently, 3,630 under-trial prisoners and 751 convicts were released on interim bail or emergency parole. The Court later ordered that these prisoners should not be asked to surrender until further notice.

In June 2022, the Supreme Court granted 15 days for these prisoners to surrender. However, confusion arose regarding the surrender of prisoners released by the High-Powered Committee. The Delhi State Legal Service Authority (DSLSA) stated it could not provide further clarification on this matter, leading to the present application by the Director General (Prisons), New Delhi.

The Director General (Prisons) noted that out of 751 convicts released on emergency parole, 71 had voluntarily surrendered and out of 3,630 undertrial prisoners released on interim bail, 267 had surrendered. This left 680 convicts and 3,365 undertrial prisoners still on emergency parole and interim bail, respectively. The applicant argued that since the releases were due to the pandemic and not on merit, the prisoners should now surrender.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Director General (Prisons), New Delhi, filed the present application seeking directions for the surrender of prisoners who had been released on emergency parole or interim bail. This application was necessitated by the normalization of the COVID-19 situation and the confusion regarding the surrender of prisoners after the Supreme Court’s order on June 3, 2022. The application was a direct result of the lack of clarity from the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) regarding the surrender of these prisoners.

Legal Framework

The legal framework for this case is based on the orders passed by the Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 01/2020. The court initially directed the formation of High-Powered Committees to release certain classes of prisoners on parole or interim bail to manage overcrowding and prevent the spread of COVID-19 in prisons.

The Supreme Court’s orders dated 23.03.2020, 07.05.2021, and 16.07.2021 in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.01/2020 are central to this case. These orders led to the release of numerous prisoners on emergency parole and interim bail. The subsequent order dated 03.06.2022, which granted 15 days for prisoners to surrender, also forms a crucial part of the legal framework.

Arguments

The applicant, the Director General (Prisons), New Delhi, argued that the prisoners were released on emergency parole or interim bail due to the COVID-19 pandemic and not on merits. The applicant submitted that as the COVID-19 situation has normalized, these prisoners must surrender before the concerned jail authorities.

The applicant relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 03.06.2022, which granted 15 days for prisoners to surrender. It was also emphasized that other states had already recalled prisoners released under similar circumstances.

The applicant highlighted that out of 751 convicts released on emergency parole, 71 had voluntarily surrendered, and out of 3,630 undertrial prisoners released on interim bail, 267 had surrendered. This left a significant number of prisoners who had not yet surrendered.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the prisoners who were released on emergency parole or interim bail, pursuant to the recommendations of the High-Powered Committee, should be directed to surrender, given that the COVID-19 situation had normalized.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court primarily relied on its own previous orders in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.01/2020, specifically the orders dated 23.03.2020, 07.05.2021, and 16.07.2021. These orders established the framework for releasing prisoners on parole and interim bail during the pandemic. The Court also referred to its order dated 03.06.2022, which granted 15 days for prisoners to surrender.

Judgment

The Court considered the following authorities:

✓ Orders dated 23.03.2020, 07.05.2021 and 16.07.2021 passed by this Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.01/2020: The court relied on these orders to highlight that the release of the prisoners was a measure taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and not on merits.

✓ Order dated 03.06.2022 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.01/2020 and SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5507-5508 of 2022 and 5516 of 2022: The court noted that it had previously granted 15 days’ time to the applicants/petitioners/prisoners to surrender before the prison authorities.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the prisoners were released on emergency parole or interim bail due to the COVID-19 pandemic and not based on the merits of their cases. The normalization of the COVID-19 situation was another significant factor that weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. The Court also considered the fact that other states had already recalled prisoners released under similar circumstances.

The Court emphasized that the initial release was a temporary measure to address the overcrowding in prisons and prevent the spread of the virus. Now that the situation had improved, the Court deemed it necessary for the prisoners to return to custody.

The Court also noted that it had already granted 15 days for prisoners to surrender in its order dated 03.06.2022. This prior order was a key factor in the Court’s decision to direct the surrender of the prisoners.

The “Fact” percentage (60%) indicates that the Court heavily considered the factual circumstances of the case, such as the normalization of the COVID-19 situation and the temporary nature of the prisoners’ release. The “Law” percentage (40%) reflects the Court’s reliance on its previous orders and the legal framework established for the release of prisoners during the pandemic.

The Court’s reasoning was straightforward: the prisoners were released due to an extraordinary situation (the pandemic), and with that situation having normalized, the rationale for their release no longer existed. The court also noted that the releases were not based on the merits of the cases, but as a measure to prevent the spread of the virus in overcrowded prisons.

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations, as the situation was clear: the releases were temporary and the circumstances that led to the releases had changed. The Court’s decision was based on the principle that the temporary measures should be reversed once the extraordinary circumstances cease to exist.

The decision was clear and concise: all prisoners released on emergency parole or interim bail must surrender within 15 days. The court also clarified that after surrendering, undertrial prisoners could apply for bail and convicts could apply for suspension of sentence, which would be considered on their merits.

The Court stated, “It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that all those undertrial prisoners/convicts were released on interim bail/emergency parole taking into consideration the over-crowding in the prisons and to prevent the spread of COVID-19 virus among prisoners in over-crowded prisons.”

The Court further added, “Therefore, now when the COVID-19 situation has now been normalized, all those prisoners/inmates/undertrial prisoners/convicts who are/were released on emergency parole/interim bail have to surrender before the concerned prison authorities.”

Finally, the Court observed, “However, it is observed that thereafter after the concerned prisoners/inmates surrender before the concerned prison authorities it will be open for the concerned undertrials to pray for bail before the competent court and their applications be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• Prisoners released on emergency parole or interim bail due to the COVID-19 pandemic must surrender within 15 days.
• The surrender is required because the COVID-19 situation has normalized, and the releases were not based on the merits of their cases.
• After surrendering, undertrial prisoners can apply for bail, and convicts can apply for suspension of sentence, which will be considered on their merits.
• This decision highlights that temporary measures taken during extraordinary circumstances will be reversed once those circumstances cease to exist.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that all undertrials and convicts who were released on Emergency Parole/Interim Bail, pursuant to the recommendations of the High-Powered Committee, must surrender before the concerned prison authorities within 15 days. The court also directed that the concerned jail authorities must inform the prisoners/inmates about the surrender order.

The Court further clarified that after surrendering, undertrial prisoners could apply for bail before the competent court, and their applications would be considered on their own merits. Similarly, convicts who had been released on Emergency Parole could apply for suspension of sentence before the concerned court, which would also be considered on its own merits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that prisoners released on emergency parole or interim bail due to extraordinary circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, must surrender once those circumstances normalize. This case reinforces the principle that such releases are temporary measures and not a permanent alteration of their legal status. This judgment does not alter any previous positions of law but rather applies existing principles to the specific circumstances of the pandemic.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order mandates the surrender of all prisoners released on emergency parole or interim bail during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the situation has normalized. The decision emphasizes that these releases were temporary measures and not based on the merits of individual cases. The Court also provided a pathway for the prisoners to seek bail or suspension of sentence after surrendering, ensuring that their rights are protected.