The show of solidarity and support from public servants across India in the G Krishnaiah case is unprecedented. Numerous associations, including the Central Indian Civil and Administrative Officers Association, 27 state IAS Associations, the IPS, IRS (IT), IRS (Customs and Central Excise), Forest, Ordnance Factories, and CSS associations, among others, have urged the Bihar government to review its decision of 10 April 2023. The Nitish Kumar government amended the Bihar Prison Manual 2012, with the specific objective of providing relief to convict Anand Mohan Singh, who instigated the mob that lynched G Krishnaiah, then-district magistrate of Gopalganj.
G Krishnaiah, who was only 34 years old at the time and in the prime of his youth, met a gruesome fate on 5 December 1994. While returning from Hajipur, where he had attended an official meeting, his official car was surrounded. He was shot at and pelted with stones at the instigation of Anand Mohan, leading to his untimely death. The message to the Bihar government from these associations is clear — public servants in this country will not let this decision go unchallenged. This incident may ignite a larger discussion on reducing the discretion available to state governments to manipulate prison manuals for their narrow political gains. It is ironic that convictions ratified by the High Court/Supreme Court are substantially diluted by arbitrary remission policies that are not even discussed in the state assembly.
In this particular case, an administrative decision has undermined the ‘substantial intent of a death sentence’ imposed by a district court in 2007 under sections 302, 307, and 147. It took thirteen long years to secure Anand Mohan’s conviction. Later, the High Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. However, as highlighted in a recent column (Bar & Bench), Nitesh Rana has shown that in the Swamy Shraddhanand case of 2008, the Supreme Court took the view that when life sentence is substituted in place of a death sentence, the convict must remain in prison for the rest of their natural life. Therefore, even on a prima facie basis, there arises a larger question of whether any remission policy is applicable in this case.
Also read: IAS officer lynched by mob. 30 yrs on, a statue, angry cadre, and a smiling CM with the killer
Policy pertaining to remissions
This brings us to the policy pertaining to remissions, covered under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India, as well as Chapter XXXII of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973. The President of India, under Article 72, and the Governor, under Article 162, have the power to grant pardons, suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of a person convicted of any offence. However, Section 433A of the CrPC restricts the power of the President and the Governor in commuting death sentences to less than 14 years of life imprisonment. Although, the section does not clearly state whether this applies to cases where the death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment.
Even if, for a moment, it is argued that convict Anand Mohan has undergone imprisonment for fourteen years, it is evident that his release could not have taken place without the arbitrary change in the provisions of the Bihar Prison Manual 2012. These amended provisions are not applicable in this case, as Anand Mohan should be covered under the extant rules at the time of his conviction. The applicable manual in this case is the Bihar Prison Manual 2002, which clearly specifies the categories of convictions under which remissions cannot be given. These categories include heinous crimes such as sexual assault, murder, and the killing of a public servant.
Furthermore, it is a well-established principle that remission is granted only to convicts who have exhibited good behaviour during their time in prison. In this case, convict Anand Mohan has been involved in multiple incidents of possessing mobile phones, with the latest FIR filed in December 2021. Clearly, there has been no application of mind as the committee responsible for reviewing these cases should have thoroughly examined his conduct by obtaining records from the jail superintendent. Additionally, the convict has faced charges for unauthorised stay and forcible entry into the Khagaria Circuit House while en route to a court appearance, clearly demonstrating a blatant disregard for the law. Despite these actions, the state government offered him a remission. The hasty decision-making process and statements from Chief Minister Nitish Kumar regarding the release make it clear that the primary motivation for the premature release of Anand Mohan is his ability to influence the outcome in certain constituencies during the upcoming assembly election in Bihar.
However, this regrettable instance of remission may spark a comprehensive discussion and debate on remission policy. The underlying assumption of remission is to give a chance to convicts who have genuinely repented, reformed, and are ready to reintegrate into society as law-abiding individuals. However, the premature release of convicts involved in heinous offences, those associated with criminal organisations, and dons/mafias with political or caste affiliations undermines the public’s faith in the criminal justice system. Moreover, it is a grave injustice to the victims and their families, who deserve the opportunity to be heard before any remission is granted to the convicts, as they bear the brunt of the crimes committed. It is essential for the government to impose limitations on its discretion to release convicts, particularly those found guilty of committing heinous offences.
Another area of concern is the parole system, which is often exploited by high-profile prisoners, especially those with political and financial influence. In this case, Anand Mohan was already on parole for his son’s wedding when the Bihar government retrospectively amended the Prison Manual to ensure he would not have to return to jail. It is high time for both the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Home Affairs to take note of this highly politicised and easily exploitable remission policy, which effectively undermines judicial pronouncements. This situation raises serious concerns for the future.
Sanjeev Chopra is a former IAS officer and Festival Director of Valley of Words. Until recently, he was Director, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration. He tweets @ChopraSanjeev. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant)