A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the Bombay High Court has claimed that the state government has contravened its own laws by granting continuous parole to actor Sanjay Dutt, a convict in the 1993 bomb blasts case. It has also alleged that the step in unconstitutional and is discriminatory towards other convicts.
Mr. Dutt's parole was extended for one month at a time for the third time in a row by the state government on Tuesday.
The petition has claimed that while many other genuine applications for parole have been pending before the state government for months, Mr. Dutt has been granted parole on frivolous grounds for several times
ADVERTISEMENT
due to his political connections. This breaches Article 14 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees right to equality to every citizen, the petitioner has claimed.
The PIL has appealed to the Bombay High Court to frame guidelines about parole to ensure that the state government does not abuse its discretionary powers. It has also pleaded that the court should appoint a panel of expert government doctors to verify the ill health of Manyata Dutt.
“The Petitioner submits that the bias/arbitrary attitude of the State government towards Sanjay Dutt itself shows the misuse of discretionary powers granted to it. Mr. Dutt being an actor and influential person is using his position/power to get undue advantage. The government has been rejecting parole/ furlough applications of other convicts in genuine cases, thereby favouring Mr. Dutt and thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees right to equality to every citizen of this country,” states the PIL filed by Pune-based lawyer Tushar Pabale.
ADVERTISEMENT
The petition has claimed that according to the Maharashtra Prison Manual 1979, a convict cannot be granted furlough exceeding 21 days in a year. Also, the convict has to complete a year in prison before being sent out on parole. Mr. Pabale has alleged that both the conditions were breached.
“Within four months of being sent to Yerwada prison last year, he applied for furlough for 15 days, after complaining of leg pain. Accordingly, he was released from the jail on October 2 last year. When he was out on parole, he sought another extension of 15 days, which was granted to him. In December again, he applied for a month-long parole on the grounds of ill health of his wife. Since then, he has been out on extensions,” Mr. Pabale told The Hindu .
He said that the state government should file an affidavit about whether it has granted parole to any other accused for so many days. “The state government should answer if it has approved the parole or
furlough application of any other accused within a year of imprisonment,” he said.
The PIL has sought government reply on the following points — the number of parole applications received from convicts undergoing imprisonment for less than five years; the number of such convicts granted parole; the number of such convicts granted parole within a year of imprisonment; and the number of convicts granted parole for 90 days.
The court is slated to hear the matter on February 25.