KASMIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of 16 Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 1547, 683, 791, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1548, 1644, 1659, 1663, 2156, 2221, 2223, 2224, 2438 and 2470 of 1989 raising a common question of law.

(2.) Briefly stated, the material background is that the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment by the Court martial. They are undergoing imprisonment in various jails of the State of Punjab. Under the remission system in force in the State of Punjab, remissions were announced from time to time by the State Government or Inspector General of Prisons. The petitioners are not being given the benefit of those remissions on the ground that they had been convicted by the Court martial. It will be sufficient to refer to full facts in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1547 of 1989 Kashmir Singh v. Union of India and another as these are representative of the facts in the connected writ petitions. The petitioner was convicted by the Court Martial and sentenced to nine years imprisonment on 16-6-1985. He earned remission of one year 10 months and 29 days on account of his good conduct. The State of Punjab, respondent No. 2, granted remissions to various categories of prisoners lodged in the jails in the State in November, 1985 and August, 1986. According to the scale laid down in the order of remission, the petitioner was entitled to 8 months remission. On another occasion, the State of Punjab announced remission of one year to all the prisoners lodged in the jails in the State. On 19-12-1988 Inspector General of Prisons awarded 60 days remission to all the convicts lodged in the jail. The benefit of all remissions granted by the State Government of Punjab. Or the Inspector General of Prisons was not extended to the petitioner. Some other prisoners who were similarly situated have, however, been given the benefit of such remission. The petitioner had been discriminated against. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the action of the government in denying the benefit of remissions granted by the State Government or the Inspector General of Prisons as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner also claimed that he was entitled to the benefit of the period when he was in custody during the pendency of the trial resulting in his conviction.

(3.) In the return filed by the State of Punjab respondent No. 2, the stand taken is that the petitioner having been convicted by the Court Martial, was not entitled to remissions granted by the State Government to other prisoners convicted by ordinary criminal Courts. It was stated that the petitioner was being granted remission to which he was entitled under the rules. Along with the return, the State of Punjab produced State Government order dated August 19, 1986 whereby remission was granted to various categories of prisoners. In the endorsement of the said order the Superintendents of Jails were asked to furnish names and particulars of prisoners who had been convicted by the Court Martial so that the matter for the grant of remission could be taken up with the Ministry concerned. Though the Union of India did not file a return in the aforesaid writ petition, a return was filed in the connected writ petition No. 1511 of 1989. It was stated that the Army Act, 1950, contained elaborate provisions with regard to grant of pardon, remission etc. and detailed instructions had been laid down in Army Headquarters letter No. 2248/PSI dated June 24, 1963. According to the instructions, periodic review was made on the basis of conduct of the prisoners and remissions were granted. It was further stated that the Supreme Court had already settled that a person convicted under the Amry Act was not entitled to set off the period of custody during trial.