A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in National Alliance for People’s Movements & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. examines the constitutional validity of the classification adopted by the High Powered Committee constituted pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court for decongestion of prisons during the Covid-19 pandemic. The case arose from a public interest challenge to the guidelines framed by the High Powered Committee of Maharashtra, which excluded certain categories of prisoners, particularly those charged under special statutes and those convicted of offences punishable above seven years, from the benefit of interim bail or parole. The petitioners contended that such categorisation was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court analysed the scope of its earlier suo motu directions issued in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2020 and clarified that the temporary release of prisoners during the pandemic was not a statutory right but a humanitarian and administrative measure aimed at preventing overcrowding and safeguarding public health. The Court upheld the impugned classification, holding that the exclusion of prisoners charged under special enactments such as MCOCA, NDPS, UAPA, PMLA had a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely, balancing public health concerns with societal security.

The decision reiterates the settled constitutional principle that reasonable classification is permissible and that equality does not mean identical treatment. It further underscores judicial restraint in interfering with expert administrative decisions taken in extraordinary circumstances. The judgment is significant for its articulation of the limits of judicial review in policy decisions taken during public health emergencies and for reaffirming that the pandemic cannot be used as a fortuitous circumstance to claim bail otherwise impermissible in law.

Keywords: Covid-19 Pandemic, Prison Decongestion, Interim Bail, High Powered Committee, Article 14, Reasonable Classification

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment emerged from an unprecedented public health crisis triggered by the outbreak of Novel Coronavirus (Covid-19), which posed severe challenges to prison administration across India. Overcrowding in prisons was identified as a major risk factor for rapid transmission of the virus, thereby implicating the right to life and health of prisoners under Article 21. Recognising this, the Supreme Court, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2020, initiated proceedings to address prison overcrowding as a constitutional concern.

Pursuant to its orders dated 16 March 2020 and 23 March 2020, the Court directed all States and Union Territories to constitute High Powered Committees to determine appropriate categories of prisoners who could be released on interim bail or parole. These directions were deliberately broad, granting discretion to States to account for local conditions such as prison occupancy, severity of offences, and public safety considerations.

In compliance, the State of Maharashtra constituted an HPC which issued guidelines on 25 March 2020. These guidelines classified prisoners into three broad categories based on nature of offence and severity of punishment, and expressly excluded prisoners charged under special statutes irrespective of the length of punishment. This exclusion formed the core of the dispute.

The petitioners, claiming to act in public interest, approached the Bombay High Court alleging that such categorisation was arbitrary and discriminatory. Upon dismissal of their challenge, the matter reached the Supreme Court. The present judgment, therefore, is situated at the intersection of constitutional equality, criminal justice policy, and emergency public health governance.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioners challenged the decisions and minutes of meetings of the Maharashtra High Powered Committee dated 25 March 2020 and 11 May 2020, along with a corrigendum dated 18 May 2020. These instruments collectively governed the temporary release of prisoners during the Covid-19 pandemic. The HPC classified inmates into three categories: first, undertrial and convicted prisoners facing punishment of seven years or less; second, convicted prisoners sentenced to more than seven years; and third, undertrials or convicts charged under serious economic offences or special enactments such as MCOCA, NDPS, UAPA, and PMLA.

The petitioners alleged that the exclusion of the third category amounted to hostile discrimination, particularly where the prescribed punishment under certain special statutes could be less than seven years. They further contended that insisting upon prior release on parole or furlough for life convicts was unreasonable. According to them, the HPC failed to adhere to the principle of equal treatment mandated under Article 14.

The State defended the guidelines by emphasising the temporary and exceptional nature of the measure, asserting that the object was not to confer bail as a right but to reduce overcrowding to prevent viral spread. It was highlighted that prisoners excluded from the HPC benefit could still apply for bail under ordinary criminal law provisions.

The Bombay High Court upheld the classification, observing that the HPC’s decision was based on intelligible differentia and was consistent with the Supreme Court’s suo motu directions. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the categorisation of prisoners by the High Powered Committee violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
ii. Whether exclusion of prisoners charged under special enactments from interim bail during Covid-19 was arbitrary?
iii. Whether interim bail during a pandemic constitutes a legal or statutory right?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Petitioners submitted that the classification adopted by the HPC was manifestly arbitrary and failed the twin test of intelligible differentia and rational nexus. It was argued that prisoners charged under special statutes with lesser punishments were unfairly excluded. Reliance was placed on Article 14 jurisprudence to contend that severity of offence could not be presumed solely from the statute invoked.

The Petitioners further argued that the insistence on prior release for life convicts was unreasonable and unrelated to the object of decongestion. It was contended that public health exigencies demanded a broader and more inclusive approach.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Respondents submitted that the HPC acted strictly within the scope of the Supreme Court’s directions and exercised informed discretion. It was argued that offences under special enactments involve greater societal impact and are subject to statutory bail restrictions, justifying a separate classification.

The Respondents emphasised that interim bail was not a fundamental or statutory right but an additional humanitarian measure. It was argued that excluded prisoners retained their ordinary legal remedies for bail.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Bombay High Court’s decision. The Court held that the very purpose of constituting HPCs was to enable State-specific decision-making based on prevailing conditions. It observed that the Maharashtra HPC categorised prisoners based on nature of offence and severity, which directly aligned with the object of decongestion without jeopardising public safety.

The Court reiterated that reasonable classification is constitutionally permissible, relying on precedents such as State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, Arun Kumar v. Union of India, and K.R. Lakshman v. Karnataka Electricity Board. It held that equality does not require identical treatment in all circumstances.

The Court clarified that interim bail during the pandemic was an exceptional benefit arising from a humanitarian consideration and not a right enforceable under law. The exclusion of certain categories merely denied this additional benefit and did not extinguish existing legal rights. Judicial interference, it held, was unwarranted in policy decisions taken by expert bodies unless manifest arbitrariness was shown.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the judgment lies in the holding that classification of prisoners by the High Powered Committee based on the nature of offence and statutory framework is reasonable and constitutionally valid. Interim bail granted during the Covid-19 pandemic is not a statutory or fundamental right but a temporary, humanitarian measure aimed at decongestion. Therefore, exclusion of prisoners charged under special enactments does not violate Article 14 as it has a rational nexus with societal interest and public safety.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that if existing measures fail to achieve decongestion, the HPC may reconsider and modify its guidelines. It also noted that individual grievances of discrimination within the same category may still be judicially examined.

c) GUIDELINES 

The Court reaffirmed that HPCs retain continuing discretion to reassess categories based on evolving circumstances. It clarified that States are not mandated to release prisoners uniformly and must balance public health with law and order considerations.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces judicial deference to expert administrative bodies in crisis governance. It strikes a balance between human rights of prisoners and societal security, clarifying that equality jurisprudence does not mandate uniform relief in extraordinary situations. The decision has lasting relevance in delineating the constitutional contours of emergency responses within the criminal justice system.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred
i. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75
ii. Arun Kumar v. Union of India, (2007) 1 SCC 732
iii. K.R. Lakshman v. Karnataka Electricity Board, (2001) 1 SCC 442

b) Important Statutes Referred
i. Constitution of India, 1950
ii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
iii. Special Criminal Statutes including NDPS Act, UAPA, PMLA, MCOCA