Premature release – Convict served over 26 years in actual imprisonment and served 35 years of sentence including 8 years of remission earned for offences punishable u/ss. 302 and 392 – Case rejected for premature release thrice by the State Government – Writ petition seeking direction to the State Government to prematurely release him:
Held: Inflexible guidelines can result in the real danger of overlooking the reformative potential of each individual convict – Grouping types of convicts, based on the offences they were found to have committed, as a starting point, may be justified, however, prison laws in India read with Arts.
72 and 161 encapsulate a strong underlying reformative purpose – Insistence of guidelines, and denial to consider the real impact of prison good behavior, and other relevant factors results in violation of Art. 14 – Excluding the relief of premature release to prisoners who have served extremely long periods of incarceration, not only crushes their spirit, and instils despair, but signifies society’s resolve to be harsh and unforgiving – Idea of rewarding, a prisoner for good conduct is entirely negated – r. 376 of the 2014 Rules prescribes that prisoners shall be granted remission for keeping peace and good behaviour in jail – Redirecting the petitioner who has already undergone over 26 years of incarceration and over 35 years of punishment with remission, to undergo, again, consideration before the Advisory Board, and thereafter, State Government for premature release, would be cruel – Petitioner has earned over 8 years of remission, thus demonstrates good conduct in jail – Discussions of the Jail Advisory Board are also positive and shows that he is a reformed inmate – Thus, in the interest of justice, issuance of direction to release the petitioner – Kerala Prison Rules, 1958 – Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 – rr
462 to 468. [Paras 33-35]
Remission – Grant of remission – Scope of:
Held: Blanket exclusion of certain offences, from the scope of grant of remission, by way of an executive policy, is arbitrary and against the ideals of reformation that run through the criminal justice system – Penological goal is of reformation and rehabilitation rather than retribution – Impact of applying such an executive instruction/guideline would be that any progress made by a long-term convict would leave them feeling hopeless, and condemned to an indefinite period of incarceration. [Para 28] Remission – Remission policy – Application of:
Held: Remission policy prevailing on the date of conviction, is to be applied in a given case, and if a more liberal policy exists on the day of consideration, then the latter would apply. [Para 19] Administrative law – Discretion conferred widely by plenary statute or statutory rules:
Held: Cannot be lightly fettered. [Para 29]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State of Haryana v. Jagdish [2010] 3 SCR 716; Maru Ram, v. Union of India [1981] 1 SCR 1196; General Officer Commanding-in-Chief v. Subhash Chandra Yadav [1988] 3 SCR 62; State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh [2007] 11 SCR 932; State v. H. Nilofer Nisha (2020) 14 SCC 161:[2020] 1 SCR 456; Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India [2010] 3 SCR 1059; Union of India v. V. Sriharan [2015] 14 SCR 613; Swamy Shraddananda (2) @ Mural Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka [2008] 11 SCR 93; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh [1976] Supp. 1 SCR 552; Rajan v. The Home Secretary, Home Department of Tamil Nadu [2019] 6 SCR 1035; State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2021) 9 SCC 292; Rajo v. State of Bihar Judgment dated 25.08.2023 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 252/2023; State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh [2000] 1 SCR 698; Sangeet v. State of Haryana [2012] 13 SCR 85; Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh [2022] 4 SCR 1103; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr v. Mohd. Ismail & Ors. [1991]
2 SCR 274; Chairman, All India Railway Rec. Board & Ors. v. K. Shyam Kumar & Ors. [2010] 6 SCR 291 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.