Karnataka High Court To State Govt.
In an effort to guarantee readability as regards remission claimed beneath Part 166 (i) (e) of the Karnataka Jail Guide 2021, the Karnataka Excessive Courtroom has directed the State Authorities to border tips to carry transparency relating to eligibility for remission when claimed on the floor of excellent conduct, self-discipline and participation in institutional actions.
The Writ Petition earlier than the Excessive Courtroom was filed by the Petitioner beneath Articles 226 and 227 of the Structure, searching for quashing of the endorsement issued by the Chief Superintendent of Central Jail, rejecting his declare for remission/ untimely launch. The request for remission was rejected on the bottom that no work was entrusted, and the Chief Medical Officer had recorded that the petitioner was ‘Not match for work’.
The Single Bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav held, “In an effort to ensue consideration of remission beneath Part 166 (i) (e), mandatory tips must be framed by the State Authorities in order to carry readability relating to eligibility for remission when claimed on the floor of excellent conduct, self-discipline and participation in institutional actions.”
Advocate Shriram Adiga represented the Petitioner whereas AGA Yashodha Okay.P. represented the Respondent.
Arguments
It was the case of the petitioner that remission beneath Part 166 (i) (e) of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Companies Guide 2021 is beneath the class of excellent conduct, self-discipline and participation in institutional actions as per the jail rules and the floor made out as ‘Not match for work’ beneath 166 (i) (e) of the Guide relates to remission on the bottom of efficiency of labor allotted and prescribed as per the prescribed requirements.
It was the case of the Respondents that the query of entrusting the work for individuals who are present process easy imprisonment could not come up, as work is allotted to these present process rigorous imprisonment.
Reasoning
The Bench made it clear that the declare beneath Part 166 (i) (e) and (f) of the Guide are separate and distinct. “The declare beneath clause (e) of Part 166 (i) is on the bottom of ‘good conduct, self-discipline and participation in institutional actions’, which is in contradistinction with clause (f) which refers to ‘efficiency of labor allotted and prescribed requirements’”, it stated.
Contemplating that the petitioner accomplished the sentence even with out remission on June 14, 2025, the Bench put aside the endorsement on the bottom that the endorsement handed was opposite to Part 166 (i) (e) of the Jail Guide. The Bench additionally took observe of the petitioner’s submission that in follow the authorities don’t make a distinction between remission if sought beneath Part 166 (i) (e) or Part 166 (i) (f) of the Guide and remission if hunted for beneath Part 166 (i) (e) shouldn’t be thought-about.
In gentle of such rivalry, the Bench ordered, “…it could be applicable to direct the authorities to move workplace orders or tips to make sure readability as regards remission when claimed beneath Part 166 (i) (e). Additional readability is to be made as regards the reference to ‘participation in institutional actions’ as per Jail Laws. This would go a good distance in guaranteeing that those that declare remission beneath Part 166 (i) (e) of the Guide would even be afforded aid.”
The Bench thus ordered that until the Authorities frames tips and takes steps both to amend the Jail Guide or body the Guidelines, a Round could also be issued with a view to contemplate the claims for remission by the Division, which might be within the nature of govt directions that may mould the sector.
Trigger Title: Arun Kumar Alva v. The State of Karnataka (Impartial Quotation: 2025:KHC:19758)
Look
Petitioner: Advocates Shriram Adiga, Sparsh Shetty
Respondent: AGA Yashodha Okay.P.
