The Supreme Court has temporarily halted the remission order issued by the Bombay High Court to Arun Gawli, a former gangster who later ventured into politics. Gawli, convicted for the 2012 murder of Shiv Sena leader Kamlakar Jamsandekar and serving a life sentence, will remain unaffected by the remission until July 15th.

During a hearing presided over by a vacation bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta, the Supreme Court also served a notice to Arun Gawli. This notice was in response to a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the Maharashtra government, contesting the decision of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court.

On April 5, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that Arun Gawli is entitled to benefits under the remission policy. Consequently, it instructed the authorities to take necessary steps to implement this decision. The court emphasized that individuals convicted under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) cannot be deprived of the benefits of the 2006 remission policy if they meet the eligibility criteria. This ruling was made in response to a petition filed by Arun Gawli himself, seeking early release from imprisonment.

Senior advocate Raja Thakare, representing the State government, urged the court to suspend the High Court's order. He argued that Arun Gawli, classified as a "hardened criminal turned politician," is currently serving a life sentence for murder and has been convicted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

Convicted under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and sentenced to life imprisonment on August 31, 2012, for the murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar, Arun Gawli has served 14 years in prison. At 65 years old, he has been certified as medically weak by the Medical Board.

The state government has established policies for the premature or early release of convicts, which are contingent upon various factors such as good behavior and the duration of time spent incarcerated. These policies undergo periodic revisions to ensure their efficacy.

In 2006, the remission policy underwent revisions, enabling the early release of life convicts who have completed 14 years of actual imprisonment, attained the age of 65, and are deemed physically weak. However, it explicitly states that individuals convicted under certain social Acts like MPDA, TADA, NDPS, etc., are not eligible for this provision. Subsequently, in 2015, the policy was further amended to specifically exclude its application to convicts under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The State's Special Leave Petition (SLP) argued that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by granting Arun Gawli's remission plea, as Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly vests the power to suspend or remit a sentence in the "Appropriate Government."

Additionally, the High Court was criticized for overlooking the remission guidelines issued on December 1, 2015, which specifically exclude convicts under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA), Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Acts. This oversight was highlighted in the State's Special Leave Petition (SLP).

“The observation made by the Hon'ble High Court regarding the exclusion of the MCOC Act in the 2006 policy is misinterpreted, as evidenced by the notification of 01.12.2015, where TADA replaced MCOCA, and the provisions of TADA and MCOCA are analogous. This clearly demonstrates that the framers of the remission policy did not intend to show leniency towards convicts under MCOCA,” the State SLP added. 

Furthermore, the High Court neglected to consider the pending cases against Gawli and the potential for his engagement in similar activities in the future. It was noted that Gawli is currently facing another prosecution under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), and the trial for this case is nearing completion. This aspect was emphasized in the State's Special Leave Petition (SLP).

“Thus the Hon’ble Bombay High Court failed to consider the potential impact on the society at large before granting the benefits of remission to the Respondent,” the State contended.