Back
: Jail Conduct Alone Cannot Decide for Convict Adil @ Seeran
A Division Bench of the has ruled that the government cannot reject a ’s solely on the basis of his conduct in jail and the nature of the crime. The court quashed the ’s order denying release to Adil @ Seeran, who has served over 19 years without , and directed a fresh, holistic reconsideration within one month.
A Life Behind Bars
Adil @ Seeran was convicted in under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was upheld by the High Court in , and the dismissed his in . Since his arrest on , he has been continuously incarcerated, never released on or . After serving 14 years without , his case for was considered under the ‘’ mechanism—a statutory power under read with the . Despite completing over 19 years without and 24 years with , the government rejected his plea in , citing his jail record and the serious nature of the offense.
Five Paths to Freedom
The court noted that Uttar Pradesh has five distinct mechanisms for early release: release under the , under , release on grounds of infirmity or old age, release under a standing policy framed under , and general mercy petitions under . The proposal in Adil’s case fell under the category. The court observed that while the purported to be an exercise of the Governor’s power under , it was in substance a statutory decision under read with the Jail Manual. Consequently, the government was bound to apply the guidelines laid down by the in .
The
In Laxman Naskar , the prescribed five factors for : whether the offense was an individual act not affecting society at large; the chance of future recurrence; whether the convict has lost his potential to commit crime; whether continued confinement serves any fruitful purpose; and the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family. The found that the completely ignored these factors. The government had instead relied heavily on a report from the trial judge that listed nine jail offenses—ranging from possession of unauthorized articles to violations of discipline—and the gravity of the original crime. The court held that such a narrow approach defeats the very purpose of as a reformative tool.
More Than a Prison Record
Citing the ’s decision in , the High Court emphasized that the appropriate government must take a “” of all opinions, keeping in mind the objective of . The court remarked that “the guidance in Rajo would show that the Government’s approach has to be far more broad based and holistic.” It stressed that the judge’s report, while entitled to weight, cannot be the sole basis for denial. The court observed that “the factors that would ultimately lead the Government to a decision on the relief of , would be far wider than the Judge’s notes on the convict’s behaviour in Jail during incarceration.” The court also noted that not all jail offenses involved aggression, and that inferences about post-release behavior should not be drawn solely from conduct in the “taxing surroundings of the prison.”
A Roadmap for Reconsideration
The court directed the government to consider social and psychological aspects, the convict’s long incarceration, the socio-economic conditions of his family, and the possibility of reintegration. It suggested that the government could subject the petitioner to a psychologist’s evaluation to better assess his potential for reformation. The court concluded that the could not be sustained and quashed it, directing the government to pass fresh orders within one month, bearing in mind the guidance in the judgment. The case now returns to the state government for a decision that looks beyond the crime and the jail record, toward the person who has spent over two decades behind bars.
