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