Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 329 (MP)

GORI SHANKAR v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2009-03-16

DIPAK MISRA, R.K.GUPTA

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) IN this batch of writ petitions, the constitutional validity of the notification dated 24-3-2008 by which Rule 4 of the M. P. Prisoners Release on Probation rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed under Section 9 of the M. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 (for brevity the Act) has been amended is called in question. For the sake of clarity and convenience, it is thought apt to adumbrate the facts in W. P. No. 13593/2008. ( 2. ) BEREFT of unnecessary details, the factual matrix, as has been unfurled, is that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 302 of the indian Penal Code (for brevity the IPC) and sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for life by judgment dated 5-6-1994 in Sessions Trial No. 138/90 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam which has been affirmed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 567/1994. After completion of 5 years of imprisonment, the petitioner submitted an application duly signed by his guardians under the rules seeking the benefit of probation under the Rules. But the State government by order dated 8-8-2008 intimated him that his application shall be considered on completion of actual sentence of 14 years. It is contended that though the petitioner has completed 10 years of incarceration, yet the application has not been considered singularly on the ground that there has been an amendment in Rule 4 which, according to the respondents, disentitles him for consideration. It is averred that the amendment to Rule 4, violates section 433- A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) and the intrinsic conceptually of the Rules itself. On this foundation, a prayer has been made for quashment of the declaration of the said amendment as unconstitutional and to issue a command to the respondents to consider his case and pass an order of release on licence under the relevant Rules. ( 3. ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the Rules have been framed under the provisions of the 1954 Act and Rule 4 postulates the eligibility for release. ( 3. ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the Rules have been framed under the provisions of the 1954 Act and Rule 4 postulates the eligibility for release. While the said Rule was in force, Section 433-A of the Code came into force on 18-12-1978, which lays down certain restrictions on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases and keeping in view the provisions contained in Sections 432, 433 and 433-A and also keeping in view the decision rendered in Maruram Vs. Union of india, AIR 1980 SC 2147 , the Rules have been amended. It is put forth that earlier the Rule had become unworkable and deserved suitable modifications and hence, it has been amended. It is set forth that the amendment does not violate or runs counter to Section 433-A of the Code. On the contrary, it is asserted that the same is in consonance with Section 433-A of the Code. ( 4. ) WE have heard Mr. D. D. Bhargava and Mr. Mahendra Pateriya, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned government Advocate for the respondents. ( 5. ) TO appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apropos to refer to the provisions contained in the 1954 Act. Section 2 of the 1954 Act deals with the powers of the Government to release by licence on conditions imposed by it. The said provision reads as under:- "2. Power of Government to release by licence on conditions imposed by it.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 where a person is confined in a prison under a sentence of imprisonment, and it appears to the Government from his antecedents and his conduct in the prison that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life, if he is released from prison, the Government may by licence permit him to be released on condition that he be placed under the supervision or authority of a Government Officer or of a person professing the same religion as the prisoner or such institution or society as may be recognized by the Government for the purpose, provided such other person, institution or society is willing to take charge or him. Explanation :- The expression "sentence of imprisonment" in this section shall include imprisonment in default of payment of fine and imprisonment for failure to furnish security under Chapter 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. " ( 6. ) SECTION 3 of the Act provides for the period for which licence is to be in force. Section 4 stipulates that the period of release is to be reckoned as imprisonment for computing the period of sentence served. Section 6 empowers the State Government to revoke the licence. Section 8 deals with the power of the Government to remit sentence. Section 9 confers power on the State government to make Rules which are to be in consistent with the Act. Section 9 being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced below:- "9. Power to make rules.- The Government may make rules consistent with this Act,- (1) for the form and conditions of licence on which prisoners may be released; (2) for the appointment of Government Officer, the recognition of institution, Societies and persons referred to in Section 2; (3) for defining the powers and duties of Government Officers, institutions, or persons, under whose authority or supervision conditionally released prisoners may be kept; (4) for defining the classes of offenders who may be conditionally released, and the periods of imprisonment after which they may be so released; (5) for prescribing the manner in which an order of revocation of a licence shall be served on the person whose licence is revoked; (6) for delegation of all or any of its powers to any officer or person authorized in this behalf; (7) generally for carrying into effect all the purposes of this Act. " ( 7. ) IN exercise of powers conferred by Section 9 of the 1954 Act the state Government has framed the 1964 Rules. Rule 3 deals with the classes of prisoners not to be released. Rule 4 deals with the eligibility for release. The said rule 4 reads as under:- "4. Eligibility for release.- Save the prisoners specified in Rule 3 any other prisoners who has served one third of his sentence of imprisonment or a total period of five years with remissions, whichever is less, may be released by the Government on licence. " ( 8. ) RULE 5 of the Rules deals with the computation of sentence for the purpose of the Rules. " ( 8. ) RULE 5 of the Rules deals with the computation of sentence for the purpose of the Rules. The said rule is as under:- "5. Computation of sentence.- For the purposes of these Rules, the following principles shall be observed in computing the period of sentence of imprisonment, namely:- (a) When a prisoner has been sentenced to several terms of imprisonment for several offences and the sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently, the longest single sentence which the prisoner is undergoing shall be deemed to be the term of his imprisonment; (b) When a prisoner has been sentenced to several terms of imprisonment for several offences and the sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run consecutively, the total period which the prisoner has to undergo shall be deemed to be the term of his imprisonment; (c) Remission already earned by the prisoner shall be counted as imprisonment served by him; and (d) Sentence of transportation for life or of imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as twenty years. Explanation :- The expression "sentence of imprisonment" in these Rules shall include imprisonment in default of the payment of fine and imprisonment for failure to furnish security under Chapter viii of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. " ( 9. ) THE other Rules pertain to the procedure for licence, information to the prisoners and guardian, duty of the guardian, processing of revocation, warrant of commitment and remission of sentence. The amendment which has been brought into the Rule 4 by notification dated 24-3-2008 is as follows:- "provided that in case of such prisoners who have been sentenced for the life imprisonment, under Sections 302 and 305 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (No. 45 of 1860) or under the provisions of other penal laws in which death sentence is also one of the punishments subject to the conditions that such prisoners are not barred for such consideration under the provisions of such laws, will be considered for premature release from the prison. The eligibility for release shall be after undergoing the sentence of 14 years of actual imprisonment without remission of his sentence : provided further that all other prisoners, undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment, will be considered for premature release only after they have undergone at least 10 years of imprisonment with remission and after the completion of 7 years of actual imprisonment without remission in sentence: provided also that nothing in the above provisos shall apply to the prisoners whose cases are being sent to the Honble Governor for consideration under Art. 161 of the Constitution of India, on special reasons for humanitarian grounds. " ( 10. ) THE submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the amendment brought into the Rule contravenes Sections 432,433 and 433-A of the Code. Section 432 deals with suspension, remission and commutation of sentences. Section 433 empowers the appropriate Government to commute the sentence. The said provision reads as under:- 433. Power to commute sentence.- The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person sentenced, commute- (a) a sentence of death, for any other punishment provided by the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860); (b) a sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for fine; (c) a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment, for simple imprisonment for any term to which that person might have been sentenced or for fine; (d) a sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. " ( 11. ) SECTION 433-A of the Code on which immense emphasis has been laid by both the sides deal with the restrictions on powers on remission or commutation in certain cases. The said provision is extracted below:- "433-A. Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases.-Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under Section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment. " ( 12. ) IN this regard, we may refer with profit to the decision in State of madhya Pradesh Vs. " ( 12. ) IN this regard, we may refer with profit to the decision in State of madhya Pradesh Vs. Ratan Singh and others, AIR 1976 SC 1532, wherein it has been held as under i- "a sentence for life would enure till the lifetime of the accused as it is not possible to fix a particular period of the prisoners death so any remissions given under the Rules could not be regarded as a substitute for a sentence of sentence for life. The Rules framed under the Prisons Act or under the Jail Manual do not affect the total period which the prisoner has to suffer but merely amount to administrative instructions regarding the various remissions to be given to the prisoner from time to time in accordance with the rules. The question of remission of the entire sentence or a part of it lies within the exclusive domain of the appropriate Government under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and neither Section 57 of the Penal Code nor any Rules or local Acts can stultify the effect of the sentence of life imprisonment given by the Court under Penal Code. The prisoner cannot be released automatically on the expiry of 20 years. " (Quoted from the placitum) ( 13. ) THE constitutional validity of of Section 433-A of the Code came to be challenged in Maru Ram, Bhiwana Ram etc. Vs. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147 . In the said case, the Constitution Bench culled out the conclusions in paragraph 72 of the judgment. The conclusions which are relevant for our present purpose are reproduced below:- " (1) We repulse all the thrusts on the vires of Section 433-A May be, penologically the prolonged term prescribed by the Section is supererogative. If we had our druthers we would have negatived the need for a fourteen-year gestation for reformation. But ours is to construe, not construct, to decode, not to make a code. (2) We affirm the current supremacy of Section 433-A over the remission Rules and short-sentencing statutes made by the various states. (6) We follow Godses case ( AIR 1961 SC 600 ) to hold that imprisonment for life lasts until the last breath, and whatever the length of remissions earned the prisoner can claim release only if the remaining sentence is remitted by Government. (6) We follow Godses case ( AIR 1961 SC 600 ) to hold that imprisonment for life lasts until the last breath, and whatever the length of remissions earned the prisoner can claim release only if the remaining sentence is remitted by Government. *** *** *** (10) Although the remission rules or short-sentencing provisions propriovigore may not apply as against Section 433-A, they will override Section 433-A if the Government, Central or State, guides itself by the self-same rules or schemes in the exercise of its constitutional power. We regard it as fair that until fresh rules are made in keeping with experience gathered, current social conditions and accepted penological thinking-a desirable step, in our view-the present remission and release schemes may usefully be taken as guidelines under Articles 72/161 and orders for release passed. We cannot fault the Government, if in some intractably savage delinquents. Section 433-A is itself treated as a guideline for exercise of Articles 72/161. These observations of ours are recommendatory to avoid a hiatus, but it is for Government, central or State, to decide whether and why the current Remission rules should not survive until replaced by a more wholesome scheme. (11) The U. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938, enabling limited enlargement under licence will be effective as legislatively sanctioned imprisonment of a loose and liberal type and such licensed enlargement will be reckoned for the purpose of the 14 year duration. Similar other statutes and rules will enjoy similar efficacy. (12) In our view, penal humanitarianism, and rehabilitative desideratum warrant liberal paroles, subject to security safeguards, and other humanizing strategies for inmates so that the dignity and worth of the human person are not desecrated by making mass jails anthropoid zoos. Human rights awareness must infuse institutional reform and search for alternatives. (14) Section 433-A does not forbid parole or other release within the 14 years span. So to interpret the Section as to intensify inner tension and intermissions of freedom is to do violence to language and liberty. " ( 14. ) IN State of Haryana and another Vs. Human rights awareness must infuse institutional reform and search for alternatives. (14) Section 433-A does not forbid parole or other release within the 14 years span. So to interpret the Section as to intensify inner tension and intermissions of freedom is to do violence to language and liberty. " ( 14. ) IN State of Haryana and another Vs. Ramdiya, (1990) 2 SCC 701 , the apex Court has expressed the view that convicts whose death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment prior to December, 1978 when Section 433-A of the Code was introduced would be entitled to consideration for release by the government as per rules and executive instructions prevailing and minimum of 14 years actual imprisonment under Section 433-A would not operate against them. Be it noted, Their Lordships were considering Paragraph 516-B of the punjab Jail Manual. ( 15. ) IN State of Punjab and others Vs. Joginder Singh and others, AIR 1990 SC 1396 , Their Lordships referred to the decision rendered in Maru Ram (supra), and expressed the view as under:- "7. . . . . . . The Court refused to read down Section 433-A to give overriding effect to the Remission Rules of the State. It categorically ruled that Remission Rules and like provisions stand excluded so far as lifers punished for capital offences are concerned. Remissions by way of reward or otherwise cannot cut down the sentence awarded by the Court except under Section 432 of the Code or in exercise of constitutional power under Article 72/161 of the Constitution. Remission cannot detract from the quantum and quality of the judicial sentence except to the extent permitted by Section 432 of the Code, subject of course to Section 433-A, or where the clemency power under the Constitution is invoked. But while exercising the Constitutional power under article 72/161, the President or the Governor, as the case may be, must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The power under articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution is absolute and cannot be fettered by any statutory provision such as Sections 432, 433 and 433-A of the Code. This power cannot be altered, modified or interfered with in any manner whatsoever by any statutory provisions or Prison Rules. ". ( 16. The power under articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution is absolute and cannot be fettered by any statutory provision such as Sections 432, 433 and 433-A of the Code. This power cannot be altered, modified or interfered with in any manner whatsoever by any statutory provisions or Prison Rules. ". ( 16. ) THEREAFTER, Their Lordships referred to Paragraph 516-B of the punjab Jail Manual which requires that the case of every conviction sentenced to imprisonment for life or imprisonment aggregating to more than 14 years and who has undergone a period of detention in jail amounting together with remission to 14 years shall be submitted to the State Government for orders. Their Lordships referred to the instructions issued in 1971 and the instructions issued in 1976 which were introduced to ensure remission schemes. In the said case, Their Lordships opined that the amendment brought in the year 1976 would entitle a convict to seek remission who must have spent at least 81/2 years of incarceration before release. ( 17. ) AT this juncture, we may note that in Naib Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1983 SC 855 , it has been held that a sentence of imprisonment for life is nothing but Rigorous Imprisonment for life and a conviction cannot be released forthwith after expiry of 14 years. ( 18. ) IN Zahid Hussein and others vs. State of W. B. and another, (2001) 3 scc 750 , it has been held that unless sentence of life imprisonment awarded to a convict is commuted by Government, he has to undergo imprisonment till the end of his life. ( 19. ) IF the aforesaid authorities are appositely appreciated, it is clear as crystal that the remission rules or short sentencing provisions would not be curtailed by Section 433-A of the Code by the time of its introduction and would govern the release unless fresh rules are made in keeping with the experience gathered, current social conditions and accepted penological thinking. Their lordships have held that it is the Government which has to decide whether and why the current Remission Rules should not survive until replaced by a more wholesome scheme. Be it noted, the Apex Court has ruled that Section 433-A does not prohibit parole or other release within 14years of span. Their lordships have held that it is the Government which has to decide whether and why the current Remission Rules should not survive until replaced by a more wholesome scheme. Be it noted, the Apex Court has ruled that Section 433-A does not prohibit parole or other release within 14years of span. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the interpretation placed by the apex Court on Section 433-A clearly lays down that it does not ostracize the concept of remission or a prior release and the stand of the State that the amendment to Rule 4 bring it in consonance with Section 433-A does not stand to reason and, therefore, deserves to be declared as ultra vires. It is also their submission that the amended Rule 4 contravenes the scheme of the Act and hence, it should be treated as unconstitutional. As far as Section 433-A of the code is concerned, as has been held by the Apex Court, does not forbid prior release. However,there is no scintilla of doubt that the same has to be permitted under the Act or the Rules. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision rendered in State of Haryana Vs. Mahender Singh and others, 2008 cr. LJ 444 (SC), wherein it has been held as under:- "32. A right to be considered for remission, keeping in view the constitutional safe-guards of a convict under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India, must be held to be a legal one, Such a legal right emanates from not only the Prisons Act but also from the rules framed thereunder. Although no convict can be said to have any constitutional right for obtaining remission in his sentence, he in view of the policy-decision itself must be held to have a right to be considered therefore. Whether by reason of a statutory rule or otherwise if a policy-decision has been laid down, the persons who come within the purview thereof are entitled to be treated equally. State of Mysore and another Vs. H. Srinivasmurthy, (1976) 1 SCC 817 . " ( 20. ) FROM the aforesaid enunciation of law, there can be no iota of doubt that a decision can be taken by the appropriate Government as regards the release. In the case at hand, there is a piece of legislation, i. e. , the 1954 Act. H. Srinivasmurthy, (1976) 1 SCC 817 . " ( 20. ) FROM the aforesaid enunciation of law, there can be no iota of doubt that a decision can be taken by the appropriate Government as regards the release. In the case at hand, there is a piece of legislation, i. e. , the 1954 Act. It empowers the State Government to release on licence on conditions imposed. That is the purport of Section 2 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 9 enables the State Government to make rules for defining the classes of offenders who may be conditionally released and the period of imprisonment after which they may be so released. Rule 3 of the 1964 Rules prescribes the classes of prisoners not to be released. There is total prohibition in respect of persons convicted for the offences punishable as mentioned under the said Rule. Rule 4 deals with the eligibility for release in respect of prisoners who are not in the net of sub-rule (4 ). Rule 4 of the Rules initially provided that save the prisoners specified in rule 3, any other prisoner who has served one third of his sentence of imprisonment or a total period of five years with remission, which ever is less, may be released by the Government on licence. A Division Bench of this Court in Babu Pahalwan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 1990 MPLJ 683, while dealing with the concept of period of reckoning of period of 14 years duration in the context of the provisions of the 1954 Act and the 1964 Rules framed thereunder, has held as under:- "12. Having discussed the ambit and scope of Section 433-A, we now address ourselves to have a glance over the provisions contained in Prison Rules 358 and 359 as well as on Section 2 of 1954 Act reproduced in Paragraph No. 7 above and 1964 Rules to find out whether the said provisions or any of them fall within the mischief of mandatory rule of 14 years as an essential condition for the release from prison. A critical look and close examination of prison Rule 358 (1) would reveal that a prisoner becomes eligible for consideration by the State Government for his release subject to police supervision or other suitable conditions after he has completed 14 years of imprisonment, inclusive of all remissions earned by him, having regard to the character of his crime, his conduct in prison and the probability of his reverting to criminal habits or instigating others to commit the crime, after he is so released. The release contemplated by Prison Rule 359 (1) is thus a release subject to Police surveillance or subject to other suitable conditions. Similarly, under sub-rule (12) (a) of Prison Rule 359, the State Government after full recommendation of the case of a prisoner, may release him prematurely with or without conditions on being satisfied that his conduct in the Jail has been good. Thus, here again the release under Prison Rule 359 may be made either with or without conditions. 13. Now turning to the provisions of M. P. Prisoners Release on probation Act, 1954, it may be seen that Section 2 of the said Act contemplates only release of a prisoner by licence, if it appears to the Government from his antecedent and his conduct in the prison that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life, if he is released from prison, then the Government may permit his release by licence, on condition that he would be placed under the supervision or authority of a Government Officer or a person, institution or a society mentioned therein. Section 9 (1) of the Act provides that the Government may make rules consistent with the act for the terms and conditions of licence on which prisoners may be released. Consequently, statutory rule known as M. P. Prisoners release on Probation Rules, 1964 were framed. Rule 6 of these rules contains the procedure for routing the application of the prisoner for his release on licence in a prescribed form which has to be filled by the prisoner concerned and his proposed guardian. Rule 7 prescribes the form in which release on licence is granted. The form so prescribed contains various conditions on breach of which the licence so granted may be revoked by the Government under rule 10 with a direction for his recommitment to the prison to serve rest of the sentence. Rule 7 prescribes the form in which release on licence is granted. The form so prescribed contains various conditions on breach of which the licence so granted may be revoked by the Government under rule 10 with a direction for his recommitment to the prison to serve rest of the sentence. Rule 9 prescribes the duty of the guardian of the prisoner released on licence to see that the conditions of the licence are fulfilled. It is also the duty of the guardian to look after the conduct and welfare of the licence and generally to act in Loco parentis and if he finds the conduct of the licence to be bad, it shall be his duty to report the fact to the District Magistrate concerned. From the above discussion and examination of the relevant provisions of 1954 Act and the Rules framed thereunder, this now abundantly clear that a prisoner released on licence under 1954 Act and the Rules, framed thereunder is not set at liberty with absolute freedom but he is released on licence subject to various conditions and on breach of any of those conditions his release on licence may be revoked, he may be again taken into custody and recommitted to prison to serve out his remaining sentence. In other words, the prisoner so released on licence, in a sense remains under the deemed custody. There is thus, a clear distinction in the two releases, that is to say, absolutely release with full freedom, and a release on licence and with certain conditions. " ( 21. ) ON a reading of the aforesaid decision, it becomes vivid that the division Bench had analyzed the scheme of the Act and the Rules and found that there was no provision which falls within the mischief of the mandatory rule of 14 years as an essential condition for the release from prison and, therefore, directions were issued in the said case. The said decision was not dealing with the constitutional validity of the Rules. In the cases at hand, the conditions have been prescribed. An exception has been carved out by the provisos added to rule 4. The said decision was not dealing with the constitutional validity of the Rules. In the cases at hand, the conditions have been prescribed. An exception has been carved out by the provisos added to rule 4. The submission of the learned Government Advocate is that regard being had to the sweeping criminal activities and the rate of heinous offences, mercenary killings and the path paved by some who have taken the killings to the profession and political murders, the rules have been amended. In this context, we may note with profit how a Division Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 1618/2006 had observed the abuse of the provisions. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case has expressed thus :- "we are, therefore, of the opinion that all the cases where probationers have been released and where appeals are pending or on mere completion of 5 years or 6 years should be reviewed again. Board is directed to review all the cases and shall also decide the application of the petitioner in the light of the directions given above. Order rejecting the application of the petitioner passed by the Board is quashed with a direction to the Board to reconsider the case in the light of judgment in the case of Arvind Yadav Vs. Ramesh kumar and others and State of M. P. Vs. Bhola (supra), and earlier order passed. As petitioner has remained in jail for more than 13 years, Board is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner within a period of two months from today. " ( 22. ) THE Division Bench had also observed that where prayer for bail has been rejected, the convicts have been released on licence. ( 23. ) IN view of our aforesaid analysis, we do not find the Rule to be ultra vires the Section 433-A of the Code or any of the provisions of the Act according it is declared as intravires. ( 24. ) THE next limb of submissions of Mr. Bhargava and Mr. Pateriya, learned Counsel, is that the cases of the petitioners should have been considered under the old rules as the amended provisions rule cannot be made applicable to them. To bolster the said submission, they have commended us to the decisions rendered in Mahendra Singh (supra) and State of Haryana Vs. Bhup Singh and others, JT 2009 (1) SC 535. Pateriya, learned Counsel, is that the cases of the petitioners should have been considered under the old rules as the amended provisions rule cannot be made applicable to them. To bolster the said submission, they have commended us to the decisions rendered in Mahendra Singh (supra) and State of Haryana Vs. Bhup Singh and others, JT 2009 (1) SC 535. To appreciate the said submission, we have carefully perused both the decisions. It is perceivable that the decision in Bhup Singh (supra), is based on Mahendra Singh (supra ). In the case of Mahendra Singh (supra), Their Lordships were dealing with the validity of the policy decision vis-a-vis Prison Rules and in that context, held that the Rules would prevail keeping in view that the right to ask for remission of sentence by a life convict would be under the law as was prevailing on the date on which the judgment of conviction and sentence was passed. In the case at hand, the Rules have been amended. Needless to emphasize, they are statutory in nature. They have been framed in exercise of powers vested under Section 9 of the 1954 Act. They are not executive instructions. In view of the aforesaid, the decisions rendered in mahendra Singh (supra) and Bhup Singh (supra) are distinguishable. ( 25. ) IN view of our foregoing analysis, we perceive no merit in this batch of writ petitions and accordingly it is dismissed without any order as to costs.