Blanket Bans on Premature Release Based on Victim's Gender Violates Reformation Ideals: Kerala High Court - 2025-04-12

Law Updates Made Simple.

Kerala High Court Strikes Down Blanket Ban on Premature Release Based on Victim 's Gender

Ernakulam, Kerala - April 11, 2025 - In a significant judgment delivered by a division bench comprising Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and Jobin Sebastian, the Kerala High Court has set aside state government orders denying premature release to two life convicts solely based on the gender of their victims. The court firmly stated that blanket exclusions based on the nature of the crime, particularly the victim's gender, undermine the principles of reformation and rehabilitation inherent in the criminal justice system.

Case Background and Contentions

The judgment arose from two writ appeals (WA No. 1245 of 2024 and WA No. 2137 of 2024) filed by wives of convicts who were denied premature release despite recommendations from the Advisory Committee. Prasanna , the appellant in WA No. 1245, challenged the rejection of premature release for her husband, convicted under Section 302 IPC for murdering a woman with whom he had an illicit relationship. Bindu Prakasan, appellant in WA No. 2137, contested the denial of release for her husband, convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for murdering his mother and attempting to murder his father.

The State Government justified its denial citing a policy against granting premature release to those involved in murders of women and children, arguing it was necessary to deter crimes against women and ensure their safety. The government contended that releasing such convicts would facilitate further offenses against women.

The appellants, represented by Advocates K. Deepa and Manu Srinath respectively, argued that the government's classification based on the victim's gender was arbitrary and discriminatory. They emphasized that blanket exclusions are legally impermissible and contradict the reformative goals of imprisonment. They relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Joseph v. State of Kerala , which had previously addressed a similar issue.

Court's Reasoning: Reformation Over Retribution

The High Court meticulously analyzed the legal framework governing premature release, including Section 77 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010, and the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014. The court also examined historical context, referencing the Travancore-Cochin Prisons Act, 1950, the Prisons Act, 1894, and the Kerala Prisons Rules, 1958.

The bench highlighted the shift in penal philosophy from retribution to reformation and rehabilitation, underscored by the Preamble of the 2010 Act. While acknowledging the State's discretion in granting premature release, the court emphasized this discretion must be exercised fairly and reasonably, citing Laxman Naskar v. Union of India .

Crucially, the court addressed the conflicting precedents of the Supreme Court. While the State relied on State of Haryana v. Jai Singh and Sanaboina Satyanarayana v. Govt. of A.P. , which seemingly permitted exclusions based on the nature of the offense, the High Court sided with the more recent and elaborately reasoned judgment in Joseph v. State of Kerala .

Quoting extensively from Joseph , the bench emphasized the Supreme Court's stance against "blanket exclusion of certain offences, from the scope of grant of remission." The High Court echoed the concern that such exclusions are "not only arbitrary, but turns the ideals of reformation that run through our criminal justice system, on its head."

> "Blanket exclusion of certain offences, from the scope of grant of remission, especially by way of an executive policy, is not only arbitrary, but turns the ideals of reformation that run through our criminal justice system, on its head." - Kerala High Court, citing Joseph v. State of Kerala

The court further resonated with the observation in Joseph that typecasting convicts based on past crimes overlooks their reformative potential and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

> "Classifying - to use a better word, typecasting convicts, through guidelines which are inflexible, based on their crime committed in the distant past can result in the real danger of overlooking the reformative potential of each individual convict." - Kerala High Court, citing Joseph v. State of Kerala

Decision and Implications

Ultimately, the Kerala High Court quashed the impugned government orders and judgments of the single judge. It directed the State Government to reconsider the premature release applications of both convicts within one month, based on the principles laid down in Joseph and devoid of gender-based discrimination.

The court also took suo motu cognizance of the broader issue of long-term prisoners languishing in jails despite Advisory Committee recommendations. It directed the government to review such cases within two months, aligning with the spirit of Supreme Court directives in Rashidul Jafar v. State of U.P. and In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail . The Kerala State Legal Services Authority was tasked with monitoring the implementation of this directive.

This landmark judgment reinforces the importance of reformation and rehabilitation within the criminal justice system and clarifies the impermissibility of blanket bans on premature release based solely on the nature of the crime or the victim's gender. It sets a significant precedent for the fair and just consideration of premature release for long-term prisoners in Kerala.