Gujarat man kept in jail for 3 years after officials fail to 'notice' email containing bail order
HC orders compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for victim
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has issued a directive instructing the state government to compensate a man who was wrongfully imprisoned for nearly three years, despite a court order suspending his sentence and granting him bail in September 2020.
The court ruled that the state should provide Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation to the applicant and urged the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) to identify similar cases of delayed release.
Justices A. S. Supehia and M. R. Mengdey, presiding over the case, described it as an "eye-opener." They noted, "Considering the plight of the applicant, who has remained in jail despite the order of this Court due to the negligence on the part of the jail authorities, though he has already been released yesterday, we are inclined to grant compensation for his illegal incarceration in the jail for almost three years."
The applicant, a 27-year-old man, had already spent more than five years in prison as per jail records. Consequently, the court deemed it necessary to compensate him for the negligence of the jail authorities, which had led to his wrongful detention.
The case came to light when the convict filed an application for regular bail through jail on August 5, 2023. This application was forwarded to the court by the Deputy Superintendent of Ahmedabad Central Jail. However, during the subsequent court hearing, Advocate Soni, representing the convict, pointed out a prior order related to a Criminal Misc. Application for the suspension of the sentence in the same appeal. It was revealed that the court had already granted the applicant regular bail by suspending his sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
To investigate why the applicant remained in jail despite the court's order, the court ordered the matter to be listed the following day. The Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) was tasked with determining the reasons behind the applicant's continued incarceration despite the court's previous order. The court also instructed the Registry to provide details about the communication of the order dated September 29, 2020, which had granted the applicant regular bail.
According to the Superintendent of Jail, after the order was passed by the court to release the applicant on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 and two sureties, the Registry sent an email to the Sessions Court in Mehsana and Ahmedabad Central Jail. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the jail authorities did not notice the email, and the court's order was not implemented. Additionally, the applicant's advocate, Mr. Soni, was not informed of the order, and it was only during the listing of the present application that the jail authorities became aware of the court's decision.
The court determined that the facts of the case revealed negligence on the part of the jail authorities. It was noted that the applicant had been released on temporary bail and furlough on several occasions during his incarceration, and he could have enjoyed his freedom if not for the oversight of the jail authorities.
Drawing attention to directions issued by the Supreme Court related to the release of undertrial prisoners and convicts who have obtained bail but are not released, the court noted that the Apex Court is still examining the matter. However, the directions issued are intended for the welfare of prisoners and convicts who have been granted bail but remain incarcerated.
In light of the present case, the court emphasized that the Court's Registry had informed the jail authorities about the order for the applicant's release on regular bail. The issue was not the receipt of the email by the jail authorities but their inability to open the attachment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, no efforts had been made to ensure the implementation of the Division Bench's order for the convict's release, even though the order had been issued on September 29, 2020, and the convict was only released on September 21, 2023.
The court expressed disappointment in the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) for failing to bring the order to the attention of the jail authorities.
To address such issues comprehensively, the court directed all the DLSAs to collect data on undertrial prisoners and convicts in similar situations—those who have been granted bail but remain in detention. The DLSAs are tasked with gathering reasons for their continued incarceration, whether due to a lack of surety, non-execution of jail bonds, or any other reasons.
The court scheduled a follow-up hearing for October 18, 2023, to ensure compliance with these directions, including the potential payment of compensation to the applicant.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
