IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Premature release of life convicts – Application for premature release has to be considered on the basis of policy as it stood on the date when accused was convicted of offence by trial court – Implementation of policy for premature release has to be carried out in an objective and transparent manner as otherwise it would impinge on constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21.
(2) Constitutional guarantees against arbitrary treatment and of right to secure life and personal liberty must not be foreclosed by an unfair process of considering applications for premature release in terms of policy.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 432 – Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 21 – Premature release of life convicts – Application for premature release has to be considered on the basis of policy as it stood on the date when accused was convicted of offence by trial court – Requirement that a convict undergoing life imprisonment could be considered for release only after attaining age of sixty has been deleted – Implementation of policy for premature release has to be carried out in an objective and transparent manner as otherwise it would impinge on constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21 – Many of these life convicts who have suffered long years of incarceration have few or no resources – Lack of literacy, education and social support structures impede their right to access legal remedies – Once State has formulated its policy defining terms for premature release, due consideration in terms of policy must be given to all eligible convicts – Constitutional guarantees against arbitrary treatment and of right to secure life and personal liberty must not be foreclosed by an unfair process of considering applications for premature release in terms of policy – Policy has been amended to remove requirement of convicts submitting application for premature release and instead places responsibility on officers of State to consider eligible prisoners – Prison administration, legal services authorities at district and State level and officers of police department and State must diligently ensure that cases of eligible prisoners are considered on the basis of policy parameters – There is general apathy towards ensuring that rights which have been made available to convicts who have served out their sentences in terms of policy are realized – This results in deprivation of liberty of those who are entitled to be released – They languish in overcrowded jails – Their poverty, illiteracy and disabilities occasioned by long years of incarceration are compounded by absence of supportive social and legal structures – Promise of equality in our Constitution would not be fulfilled if liberty were to be conditional on an individual’s resources, which unfortunately many of these cases provide hard evidence of – This situation must change and this court has had to step in – Directions issued. (Paras 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
On 1 August 2018, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a policy governing premature release of convicts with the approval of the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution. The policy is described as a “Standing Policy regarding premature release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment on the occasion of every Republic Day (26th January)”. The policy sets out categories of convicts entitled to premature release. Among those categories is para 2(b).
Findings of Court:
Where any convict undergoing life imprisonment has already been released on bail by the orders of this Court, the order granting interim bail shall continue to remain in operation until the disposal of the application for premature release.
Result : Petitions disposed of with directions.

JUDGMENT

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

1. In this batch of cases which emanates from Uttar Pradesh, five hundred and twelve convicts who are undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life seek premature release.

2. On 1 August 2018, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a policy governing premature release of convicts with the approval of the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution. The policy is described as a “Standing Policy regarding premature release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment on the occasion of every Republic Day (26th January)”. The policy sets out categories of convicts entitled to premature release. Among those categories is para 2(b). The translation provided by the Additional Advocate General is extracted below:

“2(b). All male convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life whose crime is not covered by any of the sub-rule under prohibited category defined in para-3 below and who have undergone, including undertrial custody, sentence of 16 years without remission and 20 years with remission.”

3. ‘Prohibited categories’ are spelt out in para 3 of the policy. Clause (vi) of the prohibited categories is set out below:

“(vi) All such convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life who have been convicted for the crimes related to incidents of massacre (three or more than three murders).”

4. Para 4 of the policy provided as follows:

“4. All Senior Superintendent/Superintendent/ Superintendent In charge shall examine the eligibility of all such convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life detained in jails in terms of the prescribed policy/directions contained in the aforesaid paras and shall make available in the prescribed proforma enclosed herewith the proposal of premature release of all eligible prisoners to Zonal Deputy Inspector General of Prisons by 31st October every year.”

5. Each Zonal Deputy Inspector General of Prisons was required to examine all proposals in light of the policy so as to ensure that no eligible person is left out of consideration. Each Zonal DIG had to submit the proposal to the Inspector General of Prisons annually by 15 November. The Inspector General of Prisons was further required to forward the proposal to the Government annually by 30 November. A Committee was constituted in terms of para 8 of the policy for examining and disposing all cases upon the receipt of the proposal. The Committee was required to submit its recommendations for premature release of convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life to the Government annually by 15 December on which the Government was to take a decision in terms of the prescribed procedure.

6. On 28 July 2021, an amendment was brought about to the policy. Para 2(b) of the earlier policy document dated 1 August 2018 was modified so as to provide that a convict undergoing imprisonment for life would not be released until the age of sixty years is attained. Para 2(b) as amended on 28 July 2021 was in the following terms:

“2(b) Such male convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life and are incarcerated in prison, whose crime is not covered by any of the sub-rule under prohibited category defined in para-3 below and who have completed age of 60 years and have undergone, including undertrial custody, sentence of 16 years without remission and 20 years with remission.

7. However, convicts falling within the prohibited category set out in para 3(vi) of the original policy document were granted a relaxation in the amended policy dated 28 July 2021. Para 2(g) of the amended policy dated 28 July 2021 is as follows:

“2(g) Such convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life and are incarcerated in prison, whose crime is covered by the sections mentioned in prohibited category in sub-rule-(vi), (viii) and (ix) of para3 below, and who have completed age of 60 years and have undergone, including undertrial custody, sentence of 25 years without remission and 30 years with remission.”

8. The imposit