Supreme Court rules on habeas corpus for detenus seeking premature release.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision to grant habeas corpus relief to detenus seeking premature release under a government scheme. It emphasized that habeas corpus does not apply to lawful detentions under court orders. The Court directed the competent authority to decide the detenus' representations promptly. While releasing some detenus with exemplary conduct, it instructed the State to reconsider one detenu's case due to additional convictions. The Court provided separate judgments for each detenu, ordering immediate release for some and further review for one, with a timeline for decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a writ of habeas corpus would lie for securing the release of a person undergoing a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction, praying for release in terms of some Government orders/Rules providing for premature release of prisoners.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether a writ of habeas corpus would lie for securing the release of a person undergoing a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction, praying for release in terms of some Government orders/Rules providing for premature release of prisoners.

Background and Scheme:
The Governor of Tamil Nadu, under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, issued G.O.(Ms.) No.64 dated 01.02.2018, framing guidelines for the premature release of life convicts on the occasion of the Birth Centenary of Shri M.G. Ramachandran. The Scheme constituted State and District level committees to examine cases for premature release based on certain conditions, including satisfactory behavior, safety concerns, and family acceptance.

High Court’s Decision:
The High Court of Madras allowed writs of habeas corpus, directing the release of detenus whose representations for premature release under G.O.(Ms) No.64 were pending. The High Court held that the detenus could not be denied release based on the Probation Officer's report indicating danger to their lives if released.

Supreme Court’s Analysis:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue writs of habeas corpus in such circumstances. It reiterated that a writ of habeas corpus is available to secure liberty from unlawful detention, whether by the State or private individuals. However, it emphasized that such a writ would not lie where the detention is pursuant to a court order or in accordance with the law.

Jurisdiction and Scope:
The Court highlighted that habeas corpus is a processual writ to secure liberty from unlawful detention. It is not applicable where a person is detained under a lawful court order. The Court cited various precedents, including Mohd. Ikram v. State of U.P. and Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration, affirming that habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge lawful detention or to seek parole/remission, which are administrative matters.

Evaluation of High Court’s Orders:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in directing the release of detenus without first directing the competent authority to decide their representations under the Scheme. It noted that the High Court selectively considered parts of the Probation Officer’s report and ignored other relevant factors.

Conclusion and Directions:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgments, directing the competent authority to decide the detenus' representations within a reasonable period. It exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to release certain detenus who had shown exemplary behavior and educational achievements during incarceration, while directing the State to reconsider the case of one detenu with additional convictions.

Separate Judgments:
The Supreme Court provided separate judgments for each detenu, detailing their educational achievements and behavior in jail, ultimately directing their release or reconsideration of their cases.

Final Orders:
- Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 2020: Detenu ordered to be released forthwith.
- Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2020: Detenu ordered to be released forthwith.
- Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2020: Detenu ordered to be released forthwith.
- Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2020: Detenu ordered to be released forthwith.
- Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2020: State directed to consider and decide the representation within 6 weeks.

The appeals were disposed of in these terms, and pending applications were also disposed of.

---