Dismissed¶19

Court On Its Own Motion v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Apr 2024WPC/2742/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; W.P.(PIL) No. 2742 of 2017; suo motu PIL on extremist/Naxalite surrender policy and prize-money disbursement (Kundan Pahan, Rs. 15 lakh); Amicus Curiae H.K. Shikarwar objections (I.A. No. 4883 of 2017); new surrender and rehabilitation policy resolution dated 10.07.2018; Screening Committee headed by Superintendent of Police; installments; policy decision of the State - limited judicial jurisdiction to interfere; no interference; PIL dismissed (decision date as printed 27/02.04.2024); Justices Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Deepak Roshan.

What did the court decide?

The new surrender policy dated 10.07.2018 is a policy decision of the State and this Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in such policy decision. ¶17

Court On Its Own Motion Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere with the State's new surrender-cum-rehabilitation policy for extremists dated 10.07.2018, notwithstanding the deficiencies pointed out by the Amicus Curiae. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The new surrender policy dated 10.07.2018 is a policy decision of the State and this Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in such policy decision.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

On a perusal of the new surrender policy, and notwithstanding the deficiencies pointed out by the learned Amicus, the Court finds no necessity to cause interference in the said policy apart from its limited jurisdiction in policy matters of the State.

¶19

Key takeaways

The various provisions enumerated in the surrender policy plug loopholes which could otherwise be misused by a person falsely claiming himself to be attached with an extremists organization (sentence continues into ¶18).obiter¶17
The Court is not inclined to further proceed with the Public Interest Litigation, which consequently stands dismissed.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Suo motu Public Interest Litigation (W.P.(PIL) No. 2742 of 2017, instituted 2017) taken by the High Court of Jharkhand on the surrender of Naxalite Kundan Pahan and the disbursement of Rs. 15 lacs to him. The Amicus Curiae (I.A. No. 4883 of 2017) flagged frailties in the earlier surrender policy and suggested speedy trials of surrendered extremists through the Monitoring Committee headed by the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge. During pendency, the State adopted a new surrender and rehabilitation policy vide resolution dated 10.07.2018, under which (per the State's counsel) a Screening Committee headed by the District Superintendent of Police vets credentials before prize money is handed over in installments. The Court held that the new surrender policy is a policy decision of the State in which it has very limited jurisdiction to interfere; on perusal it found no necessity to interfere despite the deficiencies pointed out, observed that the policy's provisions plug loopholes against false claimants, and dismissed the PIL. Coram: Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Deepak Roshan, JJ.; decision date as printed '27/02.04.2024'.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(PIL) No. 2742 of 2017

¶3

Court on its own motion

¶4

..… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand .....Respondent

¶7

¶8

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

¶9

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G

¶11

27/02.04.2024 Heard Mr. H.K.Shikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C. to A.G.

¶12

2. This Public Interest Litigation was instituted at the instance of the Court by taking suo-motu cognizance with respect to the surrender of Naxalite, namely, Kundan Pahan and the disbursement of an amount of Rs.15 lacs to him.

¶13

3. Mr. Shikarwar, who has appointed as an Amicus Curiae in the present case had filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 4883 of 2017 in which certain frailties in the earlier surrender policy was pointed out and certain suggestions have also been given with respect to speedy trial of those extremists who have surrendered by the Monitoring Committee headed by the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge and also to take immediate steps in case of an acquittal.

¶14

4. During the pendency of this Public Interest Litigation vide resolution dated 10.07.2018 the new surrender policy of the extremists and their rehabilitation have come into existence and Mr. Shikarwar is primarily

¶15

¶16

concerned with respect to the disbursement of the amount as per the hierarchical status of the concerned extremists as it has been submitted that the said surrender policy is being misused and there is every possibility of persons taking advantage of the surrender policy and draining the State Exchequer on account of disbursement of the prize money to them.

¶17

5. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C. to A.G. has stated that the new surrender policy dated 10.07.2018 has certain checks and balances before which the surrendered extremists is disbursed with the amount as per his status in the concerned extremists organization as the Screening Committee headed by the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District has already been put in place. 6. The surrender policy dated 10.07.2018 is basically an incentive to a person involved in extremists activities and/or attached with an extremist organization to surrender and seamlessly gel with the main stream of the society. For such incentive, certain criteria’s have been fixed and as stated by learned A.C. to A.G. a Screening Committee headed by the Superintendent of Police of the District takes into consideration the various factors and only when the credentials are established and the other criteria’s are fulfilled the price money is handed over to the concerned extremists and that too in installments. The new surrender policy dated 10.07.2018 is a policy decision of the State and this Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in such policy decision. Moresoever, the various provisions enumerated in the surrender policy plugs any loop holes which can be misused by a person falsely claiming himself to be 2

¶18

attached with an extremists organization.

¶19

7. This Public Interest Litigation was suo-motu instituted in the year 2017 and the resolution of the State Government introducing the new surrender policy of the extremists and their rehabilitation is dated 10.07.2018 and though Mr. Shikarwar, learned Amicus has pointed out certain deficiencies in the surrender policy but we on a perusal of the same do not find any necessity to cause interference in the said policy apart from the limited jurisdiction this court has in interfering in the policy matter of the State. We, therefore, on the basis of what we have stated above do not feel inclined to further proceed with this Public Interest Litigation and consequently the same stands dismissed.

¶20

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶21

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶22

Fahim/Amardeep/

¶23

Court On Its Own Motion v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Court On Its Own Motion v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Jharkhand Urga Utpadan Nigan Limited through Its Chairman Vs South West Pinnacle Exploration Pvt. Limited through Its Managing Director Vikash Jain

M/S Maa Rakshi Stone Works through Its Partner Namely Mantu Kumar Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Industries Mines and Geology

Pramod Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Ms Abhishek Enterprises through Its Proprietor Abhishek Lala Alias Abhishek Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Department of Home

Ranchi Abhibhavak Manch through Its Secretary General Mr Ajay Rai Vs State Of Jharkhand Represented Through Its Chief Secretary And Ors.

Jayanta Kumar Dey Vs Deputy Commissioner Ranchi