Important Point
By earning remissions a life convict does not acquire a right to release, but release would follow only upon an order made under the Criminal Procedure Code by the appropriate Gov­ernment or on a clemency order in exercise of power under Article 72 or 161 of the Constitution.

Judgment

G.T. Nanavati, J.-These appeals arise out of the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in writ petitions filed by “life con­victs” for their pre-mature release. The High Court held that for deciding their entitlement for pre-mature release what was relevant to consider was the Government policy/instructions in force at the time of their conviction by the trial Court and that the State Government was not right in applying the subsequent policy decisions and instruc­tions that were in force at the time when their cases were taken up for consideration. Taking this view the High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the State Government to reconsider their appli­cations. The view taken by the High Court is challenged in these appeals. As the point raised in these appeals is the same they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. It is not necessary to refer to the facts of these cases or the Government instructions issued prior to December 18, 1978 when Section 433-A came to be inserted into the Code of Criminal Procedure. As laid down by this Court in Maru Ram v. Union of India1, the power of the State Government under Sections 432 and 433 Cr. P.C. cannot now extend beyond what is provided by Section 433-A. The pre mature release of those convicted before that date had to be considered on the basis of the relevant Government instructions and the dates of their convic­tions. As regards those persons who have been convicted after Section 433-A came into force and thus fall within the purview of that section their cases will have to be considered consistently with Section 433-A and if life convicts are to be given a larger benefit it can only be done now under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution.

3. The State of Haryana was earlier considering pre mature release of life convicts in accordance with the rules framed and instructions issued by it in that behalf. To be consistent with the correct legal position emerging after the enactment of Section 433-A and the deci­sion of this Court in Maru Ram’s case, the State of Haryana modified its policy decision and instructions and declared that though the cases of life convicts for their pre mature release will still be governed by the instructions issued by it, in respect of those con­victs who fall within the purview of Section 433-A their cases will be considered on individual basis and such cases will be put up to the Governor through the Minister of Jails and Chief Minister, with full background of the prisoners and recommendations of the State level committee, along with the copy of the judgment etc., for order under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. Neither the record of these cases nor the judgments of the High Court make it clear when the said charge in the instructions was made but it appears that it was made either sometime in 1982 or latest on June 27, 1984. Obviously, the cases of the respondents-convicts, who are all life convicts and fall within the purview of Section 433-A, were required to be considered in accordance with the modified instructions as they could have been released pre maturely only if an order in that behalf was passed by the State Government in exercise of its power under Article 161 of the Constitution.

4. As held by this Court in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharash­tra2, and in Maru Ram, by earning remissions a life convict does not acquire a right to release, but release would follow only upon an order made under the Criminal Procedure Code by the appropriate Gov­ernment or on a clemency order in exercise of power under Article 72 or 161 of the Constitution. This Court observed in Maru Ram as under :

“Even if the remissions earned have totalled up to 20 years, still the State Government may or may not release the prisoner and until such a release order remitting the remaining part of the life sentence is passed, the prisoner cannot claim his liberty. The reason is that life sentence is noth