LI Network
Published on: 25 September 2023 at 00:31 IST
The Supreme Court recently issued a ruling ordering the release of a long-incarcerated convict and expressed concerns regarding a government order issued by the State of Kerala on June 4, 2022, which pertained to the premature release of prisoners.
While the specific case before the Court did not directly challenge this order, the Court found it necessary to comment on it and offer a word of caution.
The State Government’s policy excluded prisoners falling into three categories from the possibility of premature release:
1.Those convicted of heinous murders,
2. Those who committed murder involving women and children, and
3. Those who committed murder accompanied by rape.
The Court deemed the blanket exclusion of certain offenses from the potential for remission, particularly through executive policy, as problematic.
It characterized this approach as arbitrary and fundamentally inconsistent with the foundational principles of the criminal justice system, especially those related to reformation and rehabilitation.
The Court stressed that the objective of reformation should always take precedence over retribution in the justice system.
The Court, consisting of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, was considering a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that denying premature release to the petitioner, who had already served more than 26 years in prison, violated Articles 14 and 21.
The Court firmly asserted that the State government cannot assume the authority to determine sentences for crimes at its discretion by issuing such guidelines, especially when sentencing courts are fully empowered to carry out this critical function.
It opined, “While the sentencing courts may impose term sentences (in excess of 14 or 20 years) for especially heinous crimes, but not reaching the ‘rarest of rare’ level warranting the death penalty, the state government cannot, particularly through executive instruction, take on such a role for crimes as it sees fit.”
The Court cited principles of administrative law, emphasizing that discretion granted by statute or statutory rules should not be excessively limited and should be exercised in individual cases in accordance with legal requirements.
It referred to the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr v. Mohd. Ismail [1991], which held that statutory discretion cannot be constrained by self-imposed rules or policies. Although it is acceptable for an authority entrusted with discretion to establish norms or rules to regulate the exercise of discretion, it cannot deny itself the discretion required by the statute in individual cases.
Moreover, the Court noted that the Constitution bestows certain powers upon the executive under Articles 72 and 162, particularly in matters of remission and commutation. However, these powers should not be constrained by rigid guidelines.
It relied on the precedent set by State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh, which affirmed that the right to be considered for remission, in light of constitutional safeguards under Articles 20 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, is a Fundamental right.
The Court emphasized that the potential for reform of each convict should be assessed on an individual basis. It stated that inflexible guidelines that reject premature release requests solely based on the nature of the crime committed many years ago can have a devastating impact on individuals who may deserve a second chance at freedom.
The Court observed, “Categorizing convicts based solely on the offenses they committed in the distant past may be justified as a starting point. However, Indian prison laws, when read in conjunction with Articles 72 and 161, embody a strong underlying commitment to reformation. The practical consequence of a guideline that denies consideration of a premature release request by a convict who has served over 20 or 25 years, solely based on the nature of the crime committed in the distant past, would be to extinguish the hope and potential for transformation in that individual.”
In light of these considerations, the Court granted the petition for the release of the convict.