Supreme Court Questions Leniency in Anand Mohan Case, Reserves Verdict on Bihar Government’s Remission
The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment in the challenge to the Bihar Government’s decision granting premature release to former MP Anand Mohan, making sharp oral observations on the gravity of the murder of a public servant on duty. During the hearing, the Bench expressed concern over earlier judicial observations that the killing of a public servant did not qualify as a “rarest of rare” case, suggesting that such reasoning could undermine the rule of law and embolden criminals.
The case relates to the 1994 mob killing of Gopalganj District Magistrate G. Krishnaiah, who was attacked while performing official duties. Anand Mohan was initially sentenced to death, but the Patna High Court later commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, holding that the case did not fall within the “rarest of rare” category warranting capital punishment. He was released in April 2023 after the Bihar Government amended its remission policy, making those convicted of murdering public servants eligible for premature release.
During the hearing, Justice Dipankar Datta questioned the rationale behind the earlier observation, remarking that if the point-blank murder of a public servant on duty is not treated as one of the gravest offences, it could send a dangerous message that such crimes would not attract the highest degree of judicial scrutiny. The Bench observed that such reasoning may encourage criminals to believe they could escape the harshest punishment for attacks on government officials.
The Court also scrutinised the remission process followed by the Bihar Government. It raised concerns over the apparent non-disclosure of pending criminal cases against Anand Mohan while his application for premature release was being considered. The judges questioned how the prison authorities certified that no cases were pending when records suggested otherwise, indicating that the Remission Board may have been misled while taking its decision.
Counsel appearing for the Bihar Government argued that the remission was granted in accordance with the applicable policy after Anand Mohan had completed the required period of imprisonment. However, the Bench examined whether the statutory conditions regarding actual incarceration and total sentence, including earned remission, had been correctly applied. The Court also considered allegations that periods spent on parole should not have been counted towards the qualifying period for remission.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for petitioner Uma Krishnaiah, the widow of the slain District Magistrate, contended that the amendment to Bihar’s remission policy was introduced primarily to facilitate Anand Mohan’s release. The petition argues that the policy change ignored the seriousness of the offence, criminal antecedents, and the broader public interest in protecting public servants performing official duties.
The Supreme Court’s observations have attracted significant attention because they touch upon broader principles governing remission, sentencing policy, and the protection of public officials. While the Bench has not expressed a final view on the legality of Anand Mohan’s release, its remarks indicate close scrutiny of both the policy amendment and the administrative process that led to the remission. The Court has now reserved its judgment, which is expected to clarify the legal standards applicable to premature release in cases involving the murder of public servants.
