ORDER :

1. In this batch of writ applications, common relief is sought for premature release of persons sentenced to life imprisonment, after completion of over 14 years of imprisonment. The petitioners have remained incarcerated for actual periods ranging from 16 years to 24 years without remission and 20 years to 31 years with remission. The convictions are primarily under Section 302, 302/149 of the Penal Code. This Court under Article 32 of the Constitution has been passing orders from time to time for premature release of persons convicted either by setting aside the orders refusing grant of premature release on erroneous grounds as well as passing orders for release directly even though the person sentenced had not approached the authorities before institution of the writ petition.

In State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216 explaining the manner for consideration of applications for premature release this Court observed as follows:

“54. The State authority is under an obligation to at least exercise its discretion in relation to an honest expectation perceived by the convict, at the time of his conviction that his case for premature release would be considered after serving the sentence, prescribed in the short-sentencing policy existing on that date. The State has to exercise its power of remission also keeping in view any such benefit to be construed liberally in favour of a convict which may depend upon case to case and for that purpose, in our opinion, it should relate to a policy which, in the instant case, was in favour of the respondent. In case a liberal policy prevails on the date of consideration of the case of a “lifer” for premature release, he should be given benefit thereof.”

In Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1 it was observed as follows :

“114….. As far as the implication of Article 32 of the Constitution by this Court is concerned, we have already held that the power under Sections 432 and 433 is to be exercised by the appropriate Government statutorily, it is not for this Court to exercise the said power and it is always left to be decided by the appropriate Government, even if someone approaches this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution…”

On 15.04.2021, even after noticing the earlier orders for premature release passed by this court under Article 32 of the Constitution, and after our attention was invited to a policy of the State of Uttar Pradesh dated 01.08.2018, framed under Article 161 of the Constitution, we observed that “there appears to be a virtual deluge of such writ petitions from the State of Uttar Pradesh seeking premature release notwithstanding judicial pronouncements of this court.”

The High Court on 16.04.2018, in Chandrasi & Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.6041 of 2018, after noticing the lack of fairness and consistency in considering applications for premature release observed and directed as follows:

“13. The impugned orders ex facie appear to be lacking reason for rejection of such premature release particularly when there was recommendation made by the Committee headed by the District Magistrate as well as the opinion of the court was also not against the convicts and their conduct was reported to be satisfactory in jail. In these circumstances the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and are accordingly set aside with a direction that the Government shall reconsider their case for premature release in the light of fair and non-discriminatory principles by speaking order within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced by the learned counsel for applicants. Needless to say that Government ought to lay down a transparent policy in regard to premature release of convicts who were lying in prison for a long time as has been directed on several occasions by this court in earlier writ petitions.”

The State government then framed the policy dated 01.08.2018. Curiously, c