Rohit Chaturvedi vs State of Uttarakhand & Others

Held: Denial of remission cannot rest solely on the ground of heinousness of the crime – Remission is not an extension of the sentencing process, but a distinct executive function concerned with the present and future, namely, the prisoner’s conduct, evidence of reformation, and prospects of reintegration into society – To predicate its denial only on the heinous nature of the offence is to collapse this distinction and to reconvert remission into a retrospective reaffirmation of guilt, which the criminal justice system has already adjudicated upon – Criminal justice system that refuses to look beyond the gravity of the offence to the offender’s transformation will betray its reformative ideal particularly at the remission stage – Justice does not permit permanent incarceration of an individual in the shadow of their worst act – Nature of the offence cannot, thus, be the sole ground for denying remission – Emotive retribution is a course, incompatible with constitutional values – Decision on remission must emerge from a holistic assessment of the prisoner and after balancing societal interests with the prisoner’s right to be considered for release on fair and reasonable criteria – State Government, being directly concerned with prison administration and the implementation of remission policies, has not found any reason to deny the petitioner the benefit of premature release – Petitioner’s custody certificate specifically records that his conduct during incarceration has been good – Petitioner has already undergone more than twenty-two years of incarceration – Co-accused in the very same offence arising out of the same incident has been granted the benefit of premature release after undergoing a lesser period of incarceration, the denial of similar consideration to the petitioner necessarily requires the existence of cogent, rational, and clearly discernible distinguishing circumstances, and no such reasons are forthcoming in the instant case – Petitioner’s case to be considered in light of the reformative theory underlying the modern criminal justice system – Object of punishment is not merely retribution, but also the reformation and rehabilitation of the offender so as to enable his eventual reintegration into society – Continued incarceration in such circumstances would run contrary to the reformative object underlying remission and premature release policies particularly, when his co-accused has already been released – Impugned letter of MHA which disallowed the plea of premature release of the petitioner arbitrary, non-speaking, unsustainable in law and merit and thus, set aside and quashed – Petitioner entitled to the benefit of premature release/remission. [Paras 7, 7.1, 8.1-10]