ORAL JUDGMENT RAVI R.TRIPATHI 1. On a request made by learned advocate, Mr. K.M.Paul for the petitioner, the matter is taken up for final hearing on priority basis. 2. It is an unfortunate thing that the petitioner-Smt. Mayadevi Nanakchand Yadav, mother of Kuldipkumar Nanakchand Yadav had to approach this Court with the prayers as set out in para-7 of the petition. The main relief sought for is in clause-B which reads as under: “7(B) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or direction by directing the respondents to take the matter with Ministry of External Affairs, Islamabad at Pakistan for releasing the son of petitioner from Kot Lakhpat Jail, Lahore, Pakistant and other prisoners from Pakistan Jail as per the chart at Annexure-E Colly. to this petition”. 3. The matter was heard on various occasions and starting with the first hearing on 7.5.2007, when notice was issued making it returnable on 25.6.2007. 4. Having heard learned advocate, Mr. Kishor M.Paul, for the petitioners, the matter requires consideration. RULE. Learned Central Government Counsel, Mr. Anshin H.Desai, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. On a request made learned advocate Mr. Kishor M.Paul for the petitioners the matter is taken up for final hearing to which the learned Central Government Counsel has no objection. 4.1 The learned advocates for the parties i.e. learned advocate Mr. K.M.Paul for the petitioner and learned advocate, Mr.Anshin H.Desai, for Union of India invited the attention of the Court to an affidavit filed by one Shri Nagesh Singh, Director (Pak), Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and also to various annexures to that affidavit along with an order passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.16 of 2008 in the matter of Gopal Dass Thru. Brother Anand Vir V/s. Union of India and anr. dated 14.3.2011. 5. The facts of the case before the Hon’ble the Apex Court were if not identical then certainly ‘similar’ to the facts of the case before us. Having perused the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that it may not be possible for this Court to articulate the judgment and order in better terms than that of the Hon’ble the Apex Court. Having perused the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that it may not be possible for this Court to articulate the judgment and order in better terms than that of the Hon’ble the Apex Court. The Hon’ble the Apex Court started the judgment by quoting a couplet which reads as under: “Qafas udaas hai yaaron sabaa se kuch to kaho Kaheen to behre-e-khuda aaj zikr-e-yaar chale” --FAIZ AHMED FAIZ 6. The Hon’ble the Apex Court has said as under from para-7 onwards, which is reproduced for the ready perusal: “7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Solicitor General of India for the Union of India. 8. We cannot give any directions to Pakistan authorities because we have no jurisdiction over them. The Indian authorities have done all that they could in the matter. 9. However, that does not prevent us from making a request to the Pakistani authorities to consider the appeal of the petitioner for releasing him on humanitarian grounds by remitting the remaining part of his sentence. 10. It may be noted that while in the counter affidavit of the Government of India, it is mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 7 that the petitioner has been awarded a sentence of 25 years imprisonment with effect from 27.6.1986 (which means he will be released on 26.6.2011), the order of the Lt. Colonel, Commanding Officer, 27 A.K. Regiment of Pakistan (Annexure P-1 to this appeal) states that the petitioner has been awarded life sentence by the Field General Court Martial, which has been confirmed by the higher authority. 11. Thus there is a discrepancy here. At any event, we think it appropriate to make an appeal on humanitarian grounds to the Pakistan authorities to release the petitioner as he has served almost 27 years in jail. For this we refer to Portia’s famous speech in Shakespeare’s ‘Merchant of Venice’ : “The quality of mercy is not strain’d; It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God’s When mercy seasons justice.” 12. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God’s When mercy seasons justice.” 12. It may be mentioned in this connection that a delegation from Pakistan had recently come to India to request for release of Pakistani prisoners in Indian jails. This delegation was headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nasir Alam Zahid, a very respected former Judge of the Pakistan Supreme Court, and it included Mr.Syed Iqbal Haider, Senior Advocate of the Pakistan Supreme Court (who had been Pakistan’s Law Minister in Mrs. Bhutto’s Cabinet). This delegation, accompanied by Mr. Kuldip Nayyar and Mr. Mahesh Bhat of the Hind-Pak Dosti Manch, met the Prime Minister, Union Home Minister, Minister of External Affairs and other authorities in India, and informed them that a petition was filed by them in the Pakistan Supreme Court and the Court ordered release of 442 Indian prisoners languishing in Pakistan jails. (The Pakistan Supreme Court deserves to be commended in this connection). They requested for similar release of Pakistani prisoners in Indian jails, and the Indian Government generously reciprocated the gesture by releasing many Pakistani prisoners in our jails. Thus there is a humanitarian spirit on both sides, which we applaud. 13. We, therefore, request the Pakistani authorities to consider the appeal of the petitioner for remitting the remaining period of sentence and release him (as well as other similarly Indian prisoners) in the same spirit. 14. With the above observations this petition is disposed off. 15. Learned Solicitor General of India shall communicate this order to the Pakistan High Commissioner in India who is requested to communicate it to the concerned Pakistan authorities”. 7. In view of the aforesaid observations made by Hon’ble the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that similar request to the Pakistan Authorities is required to be made as is made by Hon’ble the Apex Court in para-13 and we, therefore, request the Pakistani Authorities to consider the appeal of the petitioner – the heirs of deceased widowed mother of the person in Pakistani prison for remitting the remaining period on sentence and release him (as well as other similarly Indian prisoners) in the same spirit. 8. With this, we dispose of this petition. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 8. With this, we dispose of this petition. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. We have no hesitation to put on the record that this Court is having full faith and hope in the authorities to whom the learned advocate for the respondents has invited our attention that they are pursuing the matter with their counter parts in Pakistan and the Court is hopeful that their efforts will bear fruits at the earliest. 9. It will be open for the present petitioner i.e. heirs of the erstwhile petitioner to move fresh petition for appropriate relief and direction.