SANABOINA SATYANARAYANAversusGOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

     A                          SANABOINA SA TY ANARA YANA
                                                 v.
                      GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

                                          JULY 29, 2003

     B                    [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.]


                 Constitution of India, 1950:

                 Articles 14 and 161--Government Order-Remission of sentence to life
     C convict-Benefit not granted to certain categories-One being prisoner
           convicted for crime against women such as Sections 376 and 354-Conviction
           under Sections 302, 498A and 201-Convic:t pleading that only Sections 376
           and 354 covered and not Section 498A thus entitled to the benefit of the
           Order-Justification of-Held: After the provisions of the Penal Code words
     D      'suoh as' is by way of illustration of excepted category of offences relating
,.         to crime against women in general and not exhaustive, thus plea not justified
           and rightly rejected by High Court-Further, such classification to keep
           away convicts for crime against women from the benefits of remission just,
           reasonable and proper, necessitated in the larger interest of the society, thus
           not violative of Article 14-Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376, 354, 498A, 302
     E     and 201.

                 Article 161--Government Order-Remission of sentence to life convicts
           subject to the conditions stipulated-Enlargement of Order-Scope of-Held:
           In such class of convicts or category of order enlargement beyond what was
           specifically intended in the order not justified since order is framed in the
     F     interest of the society.

                 Appellant was convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under
           Section~ 302, 498-A and 201 IPC. Convict was taken into custody and is
           undergoing imprisonment. Respondent-State passed a Government Order in
     G     exercise of powers conferred under Article 161 of the Constitution and
           remitted the on-expired residue of sentence of the various categories of life
           convicts in the State. One of the categories to which benefit was not extended
           was prisoners convicted for crimes against women such as Sections 376 and
           354 IPC. Appellant-convict filed a writ petition seeking benefit of the
           Government order as his conviction was not for a crime against women under
     I-I                                        874
           SANABOINA SATYANARA YANA t'. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH              875

Sections 376 and 354 IPC; and that this discrimination against convicts for A
crimes against women is violative of Article 14, therefore, the Government
order has to be read de-hors the said restriction so as to extend the benefit of
the remission granted. High Court dismissed the writ petition rejecting the
plea. Hence the present appeal.

      During the hearing of the appeal, a subsequent Government Order was           B
produced which was under Section 433 Cr.P.C. and Section 55 IPC stating
that several provisions of IPC other than those in tht ear!ier order relating
to crimes against women including conviction under the Dowry Prohibition
Act have been specified to be the class of the convicts who c.annot avail benefit
of remission.                                                                       c
       Appellant contended that the subsequent Government Order would not
stand in the way of the benefits accrued to the appellant in terms of the earlier
order; that a further classification among the entire class of convicts forming
a larger group, based on crime against women and those falling under the
other category should not be made; and that the stipulation contained in para D
3-(iv) of the earlier Government Order does not deny or disentitle a convict
under Section 498-A to the benefits of remission.

       Respondent-State contended that the exception carved out for denying
the benefit of remission in respect of convicts of crime against women is valid,
well merited and justifiable in public interest; that the remission itself is a     E
benefit and concession sought to be granted to a few class of persons and
being a matter of policy, the State cannot be compelled to accord remission to
all category of convicts, even against the evolved policy of the State; and that
there is no discrimination in such classification.

      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                                                    F

      HELD: I. Clause (iv) of paragraph 3 of the Government order dated
25.1.2000 specifically stated that prisoners convicted for "crimes against
women such as Section 376 and 354 /PC while being sentenced to
imprisonment for life", will fall outside the scheme for remission granted G
under the Government order. In the later portion reference of two of the
provisions of the IPC, after the words "such as" was more by way of illustration
of the excepted category of offences relating to crimes against women in
general and not with an intention to be exhaustive of the same and to merely
confine the words "crimes against women" to only those convicts for crime
against women under Sections 376 and 354 IPC. Acceptance of any such plea H
    876                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A would amount to not only doing violence to the language of the order of the
    Governor but also rewriting the same and that too in utter disregard of the
    very intention, a laudable one in larger and greater public interest. When
    keeping into consideration the societal needs and dictates of the gruesome
    events happening in large scale all over the State, a conscious decision has
B   been taken by the policy maker to keep out a class of anti socials from availing
    the benefit of the remission, courts cannot by stretching the language confer
    an undeserved benefit upon the class of convicts, who, also have not only been
    designedly but deservingly kept out of the scheme for according the benefit
    of remission. (881-B-Fl

C          2. The Constitution of India itself has chosen to countenance the claims
    of women for favourable treatment and acknowledge the fact that sex is a sound
    classification. The issue in question being one pertaining purely to the area
    of policy and political philosophy of the State, the Courts except in the rarest
    of rare cases, cannot be called upon to adjudicate on the desirability or wisdom
    of such decisions. It is no exaggeration to place on record that instances of
D   vjolence against women and children particularly female, such as rape, dowry
    deaths, domestic violence, bride burning, molestation, brazen, ill treatment
    of horror, vulgarity and indecency are not only rampant but on phenomenal
    increase casting a shadow of shame on the society, the culture and governance
    in this country and it seems that cruelty to women and problems of battered
E   wives have become ironically almost a world wide phenomenon. Such a situation
    deserves a special treatment in the hands of the State. Consequently, the
    classification to keep away convicts for crimes against women from the
    benefits of remission under the order does not violate any reasonable principle
    or concept of law so as to call for its condemnation in exercise of the powers
    of judicial review. The classification therefore sounds just, reasonable, proper
F   and necessitated in the larger interests of society and greater public interest
    and does not attract the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution.
                                                                   [881-H; 882-A-D]

          3. Under the Government order grant of remission of sentence was in
    respect of only a specified class of convicts and that too "subject to the
G   conditions" specified in the very Government order. Consequently, the claim
    for remission cannot be made or approved de-hors the specific conditions
    subject to which only it has been accorded and in as much as the grant as
    well as the conditions formed a compendious single common pattern or scheme
    of concession by way of remission, pregnated with a policy designed in public
H   interest and the safety and interests of the society, either the remission could
        SANA BOIN A SATYANARAYANA 1·. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH [RAJU. J.]   877

be availed of only subject to the conditions stipulated or the entirety of the A
scheme fails as a whole, and there is no scope for judicial modification or
modulating the same so as to extend the concession in excess of the very
objective of the maker of the order which seems to have been guided by
considerations of State policy. In such class or category of orders, there is
no justification for any addition or subtraction to facilitate enlargement of
the scope and applicability of the order beyond what was specifically intended B
in the order itself. (880-F-H; 881-A-BI

        CRIMrNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1227 of
2002.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7 .2000 of the Andhra Pradesh C
High Court in W.P. No. 4441 of2000.

        Ananga Bhattacharya, for Mis. P.S.N & Co. for the Appellant.

        Gutur Prabhakar and Ms. T. Anamika for the Respondents.
                                                                                 D
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       DORAISWAMY RAJU, J. The above appeal has been filed against the
judgment and order dated 11. 7.2000 in Writ Petition No. 4441 of 2000 by a
Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing the writ
petition along with some other writ petition also which came to be disposed E
of by a common judgment. The claim of the petitioner Sanabolina Nelabala
Chandrudu in the writ petition filled before the High Court was that the
convict, by name, Sri Sanaboina Satyanarayana, (the appellant now before
th is Court) the brother of the writ petitioner therein, was tried by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division at Eluru along with four p
others for the offence punishable under section 302, 498-A and 201 !PC in
Sessions Case No. 4 of 1990, that after completion of the trial, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge convicted the brother of the writ petitioner who
stood charged as accused No. 1 under Section 302 !PC and sentenced him,
to undergo imprisonment for life. He was also said to have been convicted
under Section 498-A !PC and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous G
imprisonment, in addition to the payment of Rs. 1,000 as fine in default of
which to suffer a further six months' rigorous imprisonment. Conviction under
Section 201 IPC was also made for which he has been sentenced to undergo
four years' rigorous imprisonment in addition to the payment of Rs. 1,000 as
fine and in default to suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment. At appeal filed H
    878                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A before the High Court, being Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1992 was also
    dismissed on 04.05.1993. The convict was said to have been taken into
    custody on 25.02.1992 and is under going imprisonment.

           While so, it appears that the Governor of the first respondent - State
    has passed GOMs. No. 18 HOME (PRISONERS-C DEPARTMENT) dated
B   25.01.2000 in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 161 of the
    Constitution of India remitting the un-expired residue of sentence as on
    26.01.2000, of the various categories of prisoners in the State who have been
    convicted by Civil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction for offences against laws
    relating to a matter to which the Executive Power of the State extends, subject
C   to the conditions specified in paras (2) and (3) of the said Government order.
    The said order came to be passed on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary
    of the India becoming a Republic. The relevant part of the Government order
    which needs reference for appreciating the grievance of the appellant is as
    hereunder: -

D          "(a) All convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life who
                have undergone an actual sentence of 7 years and a total sentence
                of 10 years (including remission) as on 26.01.2000.
                [(b) and (c) omitted as not relevant for the purpose of the case].
           2    (Omitted as not relevant for the present case).
E          3.   The remission of sentence ordered in para 1 above shall not
                apply to the following categories of prisoners, namely:-
                (i) Prisoners convicted and sentenced by Courts situated outside
                the State of A.P.

F               (ii) Prisoners convicted of offences against laws relating to a
                matter to which the Executive Power of the Union extends.
                (iii) Prisoners convicted under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
                Substances Act, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
                (Prevention of the atrocities) Act, Explosive Substances Act,
G               Indian Explosive Substances Act, Indian Explosive Act and Indian
                Arms Act, while being sentenced to imprisonment for life.
                 (iv) Prisoners convicted for crimes against women such as Section
                 376 and 354 !PC, while being sentenced to imprisonment for life.
                 (v) Prisoners convicted for the offences of theft, robbery, dacoity
H                and receiving stolen property (i.e. Section 379 to 411 !PC) while
      SANA BOIN A SA TY A NARA YANA , .. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH [RAJU, J.]   879

             being sentenced to imprisonment for life.                              A
             (vi) Prisoners who have overstayed on Parole/Furlough for
             cumulative periods in excess of I 0 years and,

             (vii) Prisoners who have escaped while undergoing the sentence.

       4.                                                                           B
      As indicated earlier, it makes explicit that the remission order is subject
to the conditions specified in paras (2) and (3) above, and therefore subject
to the stipulation contained in item (iv) of Para-3.

       The grievance espoused before the High Court was that the appellant C
- convict was entitled to the benefit of the said Government order and as long
as his conviction was not for a crime against women under section 376 and
354 !PC, the benefit of the Government orders could not be denied to the
convict. It appears to have been also urged before the High Court that the
discrimination made in this regard against convicts for crimes against woman
suffers the wise of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the D
Government order has to be read de-hors the said restriction so as to extend
the benefit of the remission granted thereunder to the appellant also. The
High Court rejected such a plea urged on behalf of the appellant as well as
the others observing that the power under Article 161 being purely a
discretionary one it is for the Governor to grant remission confined to certain E
categories of offenders/ convicts only and that there was no discrimination
involved in the same. As far the other issue relating to the construction of
category (iv) of para-3, it was observed, all offences crimes against women
are disabled from claiming the benefit ofremission under the orders in question
and not merely those convicted under section 376 and 354 IPC.
                                                                                    F
       When the matter came up before the Court on 24.07 .2003 Mr. S.
Muralidhar, learned counsel appeared and made detailed submissions on
behalf of the appellant reiterating the same grounds as were urged before the
High Court. As the matter was about to be concluded, it was brought to our
notice that the Government seem to have also passed a subsequent order and
that if any benefit is given under the said Government order, it may ensure G
to the advantage of the claim made in this appeal. At that stage, the matter
was adjourned to enable the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
State to produce the subsequent orders said to have been passed by the
Govemment. A copy ofGOMs. No. 17 HOME (PRISONS-B-2) DEPARTMENT
dated 17.01.2003 has been made available and it is seen from the said H
    880                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A Government order that the same was not in exercise of powers under Article
    161 but under Section 433 Cr. P.C. and Section 55 IPC and that several
    provisions of the IPC other than those which were already illustrated in the
    earlier order of the Governor relating to crimes against women including the
    conviction under the Dowry Prohibition Act have been specified to be the
    class of convicts who cannot avail of the benefit of remission. The learned
B   counsel appearing for the appellant today would contend that the G.0. is of
    a subsequent date and may not stand in the way of the benefits which are
    claimed to have accrued to the appellant who has been convicted and
    undergoing imprisonment, in terms of the earlier order of the Governor dated
    25.01.2000. As on the earlier date of hearing as well as today, the learned
C   counsel for the appellant tried to contend that there is no rhyme or reason
    in making a further classification among the entire class of convicts forming
    a larger group, based on offences or crime against womt:n and those falling
    under the other <:ategory, apart from contending that stipulation contained in
    para 3- (iv) of the earlier order, noticed supra, does not, by its very terms deny
    or disentitle a convict under section 498-A IPC, to the benefits of remission
D   granted under the earlier Government order.

         The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-state, while adopting
  the reasoning of the High Court contended that the exception carved out
  denying the benefit of remission in respect of convicts of crime against
E women is a valid one, well merited and justifiable in public interest and the
  same is not justiciable. It was also urged that the remission itself is a benefit
  and concession sought to be granted to a few class of persons and being
  a matter of policy, the State cannot be compelled to accord remission to all
  category of convicts, even against the evolved policy of the State and no
  discrimination which suffer the vice of Article I4 to the Constitution of India,
F could be said to be involved in such classification and the High Court was
  right in rejecting the claim on behalf of the appellant.

        We have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel
  appearing on either side. In our view, the rejection of the plea on behalf of
  the appellant by the High Court was well merited and supported by sound
G reasons. As pointed out earlier, the remission to be granted was in respect
  of only a specified class of convicts and that too "subject to the conditions"
  specified in the very Government order. Consequently, the claim for remission
  cannot be made or countenanced de-hors the specific conditions subject to
  which only it has been accorded and in as much as the grant as well as the
H conditions formed a compendious single common pattern or scheme of
      SANABOINA SATYANARAYANA 1·. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH [RAJU,J.]          881
concession by way of remission, pregnated with a policy designed in public          A
 interest and the safety and interests of the society, either the remission could
be availed of only subject to the conditions stipulated or the entirety of the
scheme fails as whole, and there is no scope for judicial modification or
modulating the same so as to extend the concession in excess of the very
objective of the maker of the order which seems to have been guided by
considerations of State policy. In such class or category of orders, there is       B
no justification for any addition or subtraction to facilitate enlargement of the
scope and applicability of the order beyond what was specifically intended
in the order itself.

      Clause (iv) of paragraph 3 of the Government order dated 25.01.2000           C
specifically stated that prisoners convicted for "Crimes against women such
as section 376 and 354 IPC while being sentenced to imprisonment for life"
will fall outside scheme for remission granted under the said G.O. When the
clause noticed above, in the later portion referred to two of the provisions
of the IPC, after the words "such as" it was more by way of illustration of
the excepted category of offences relating to crimes against women in general D
and not with an intention to be exhaustive of the same and to merely confine
the words "crimes against women" to only those convicts for crime against
women under Section 376 and 354 IPC. Acceptance of any such plea would
amount to not only doing violence to the language of the order of the
Governor but also rewriting the same and that too in utter disregard of the E
very intention, a laudable one in larger and greater public interest. When
keeping into consideration the societal needs and dictates of the gruesome
events happening in large scale all over the State, a conscious decision has
been taken by the policy maker to keep out a class of anti socials from
availing the benefit of the remission, courts cannot by stretching the language
confer an undeserved benefit upon the class of convicts, who, in our view F
also have not only been designedly but deservingly were kept out of the
scheme for according the benefit of remission.

       The plea of discrimination needs mention only to be rejected. The
remission proposed in commemoration of the 50 years of Indian Republic
itself is a boon an concession to which no one had any vested right. As to G
what classes of persons or category of offenders to whom the remission has
to be extended is a matter of policy particularly when it is also a constituent
power conferred upon the constitutional functionary and Head of the State
Government, larger area of latitude is to be conceded in favour of such
authority to decide upon th~ frame and limits of its exercise under Article 161 H
    882                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A itself. The Constitution of India itself has chosen to countenance the claims
  of women for favourable treatment and acknowledge the fact that sex is a
  sound classification. The issue in question being one pertaining purely to the
  area policy and political philosophy of the State, the Courts except in the         Ii
  rarest of rare cases, cannot be called upon to adjudicate on the desirability       ,,,i
  or wisdom of such decisions. It is no exaggeration to place on record that
B instances of violence against women and children particularly female, such as
  rape, dowry deaths, domestic violence, bride burning, molestation, brazen, ill
  treatment of horror, vulgarity and indecency are not only rampant but on
  phenomenal increase casting a shadow of shame on the society, the culture
  and Governance in this country and it seems that cruelty to women problems
C of battered wives have become ironically almost a world wide phenomenon.
  Such a situation deserves a special treatment in the hands of the State.
  Consequently, the classification in this regard to keep/away convicts for
  crimes against women from the benefits of remission under the order dated
  25.01.2000 cannot be said to violate any reasonable principle or concepts of
  law so as to call for its condemnation in exercise of the powers of judicial
D review. The classification therefore sound just, reasonable, proper and
  necessitated in the larger interest of society and greater public interest and
  consequently cannot by any stretch of imagination be branded to be invidious
  to attract the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia. A careful scrutiny
  of the various excepted class of convicts only show that the real object is
E to ensure that those who prey on the community and violate fundamental
  values of mankind, society and national interest should not get undeserved
  benefit.

          Consequently, we see no merit whatsoever in the appeal and the same,
    therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed ..

    NJ.                                                        Appeal dismissed.