The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Bihar government’s decision to grant clemency to former MP Anand Mohan in the 1994 murder of district judge G Krishnaiah, stating that “every dice was loaded in his favour” for his release.
While reserving orders on the petition filed by the wife of the deceased officer Umadevi who had questioned Mohan’s release, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Shail Nagu said the convict’s brazen act of shooting the already injured Krishnaiah was the “rarest crime”. She said the rule of law required that the rules of forgiveness not be amended to facilitate the individual.
According to the Bihar Prison Manual 2002 rules governing pardon, a convict punished for murder of a public servant is not eligible for early release. The petition claimed that the state passed a critical amendment on April 10, 2023 removing the “disqualification,” paving the way for Mohan’s release on April 24 of that year.
Hearing the state government, State Exemption Board and Mohan alongside the petitioner, the bench said: “You are not bringing an amendment to facilitate any individual. Fourteen days after the amendment, he was released. There is something called rule of law in this country.”
The petition was argued by senior advocate Siddharth Luthra along with advocate Tanya Shree who pointed out how the state was indulging in “selective exposure” while presenting the case of Mohan’s premature release before the state pardon board. No details of his criminal history were provided, no parole date was given at the time of consideration, and he was even shown to be 74 when an affidavit he filed with the Supreme Court in 2023 declared him 67.
The board said: “In order for him to be released, every dice was loaded in his favour. Before the Pardon Board, his age was presented as 74 so that the board would take a lenient view. The state’s checklist for parole does not contain a list of crimes committed inside prison, and days spent on parole. Aren’t these relevant considerations before deciding on parole?”
Dinesh Dwivedi, Mohan’s lawyer, stated that under the rules, he was eligible for pardon on completion of 14 years of imprisonment and that he had written books while in prison. Pointing out his background as the grandson of a freedom fighter, the bench told him: “They will turn in their graves if they find out about your behaviour.”
While the petitioner submitted a list of 32 criminal cases against Mohan and two cases registered for crimes committed inside the jail, Dwivedi said he was acquitted in most of the cases.
Even the state government represented by senior advocate Ranjit Kumar denied the allegation that the state deliberately acted in favor of Mohan. Defending the former MP’s release, Kumar said: “There is no doubt that he served a 22-year prison sentence with pardon. He is now in his seventies and three years have passed since his release was ordered.”
The court said: “Take the facts of this case. This officer (Krishnaiah) would have been spared if this man (Mohan) had not incited the people. He was lying in an injured state under a car that had turned into a tortoise. He (Mohan) who was then an MLA comes with his entourage and urges everyone to eliminate him and the man is shot. We wonder what other rare case it would be. It would be like that in any other state. We know nothing about Bihar?”
Luthra told the court that the state’s pardon was governed by a 2002 policy under which life convicts would be considered for premature release only on completion of 20 years of imprisonment. The April 10 notification was “prima facie illegal” and contravened the rulings of the Supreme Court which clearly stated that the clemency policy prevailing at the time of conviction would govern the clemency granted to life convicts.
Since Mohan was initially sentenced to death in the case and later commuted to life imprisonment by the Patna High Court, Luthra said that under Rule 481 (i) (c) of the Bihar Jail Manual 2012, a convict whose death sentence has been converted to life imprisonment is not eligible for early release.
He further referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Laxman Naskar case (2000) which highlighted the need to consider prior criminal antecedents, social status and likelihood of the accused committing a crime in future as some of the guidelines for early release of the convict.
Luthra pointed out that the ‘pending cases’ column in the checklist mentions ‘no cases’ even when Mohan declared in an affidavit filed before the Election Commission in 2004 that he had 32 cases pending against him across Bihar.
In addition, he faced two cases relating to the assault of another inmate with lathi in 2014 and the seizure of four mobile phones from the prison in which he was involved in in 2021 which were not mentioned in the checklist. This is of significance as the petitioner pointed out that the Prisons Manual also contains a provision under which pardons for misconduct in prison can be revoked.
The state Exemption Board also filed briefs by adopting the arguments presented by the state. Enraged by this stance, the bench said: “How can you say that you are adopting the state’s arguments? You are supposed to be a neutral authority. Isn’t it your duty to find out if there is any other case pending?” The council said that there was no higher authority or official who could point out any omission on the part of the state.
Krishnaiah, who was then the district magistrate of Gopalganj, was murdered in December 1994. A lower court sentenced him to death in 2007. The Patna High Court commuted his sentence to life in 2008, a decision the Supreme Court upheld in July 2012.
