Categorization of prisoners for premature release must consider the nature of the crime and other relevant factors, and the court's decision is based on the specific circumstances of the case.

S.S. Shinde, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he has completed actual imprisonment of 14 years on 22.05.2015, and completed 20 years 5 months and 24 days of imprisonment with remission on 31st January, 2017. The petitioner has been confined in Open Prison, Paithan, since last three years. On 18th March, 2017, the respondents have placed the petitioner in category 3(d) of the Guidelines for premature release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment or to death penalty commuted to life imprisonment after 18th December, 1973 [for short ‘Guidelines of 1992’] and category 6(c) of the Guidelines for Premature Release Under the ‘14 year Rule of Prisoners serving life sentence [for short ‘Guidelines of 2010’] and directed premature release after completion of 26 years imprisonment. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he is wrongly placed in the category 3(d) of the Guidelines of 1992, as the murder committed is not with extreme violence or perversity, and that the Guidelines of 2010 are not applicable to the petitioner. Similarly placed prisoners are released on premature basis merely after serving of 14 years and thus the case of the petitioner is being treated arbitrarily and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner suffers discrimination, when similarly situated prisoners are released on ‘14 years premature release Rule’ merely after 14 years imprisonment. The respondents failed to apply the norms laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the case for premature release. The respondents have failed to consider that the petitioner is under reform and serving in Open Prison, thus the strict Guidelines of 1992, which failed to consider the reformed prisoner and merely places them in categories, is illegal and arbitrary. The authorities should have considered that non-release of a convict is worse sanction than the death sentence, resultant encroachment upon the life and personal liberty by the executive. In view of the above submissions, the order dated 18.03.2017 is subject to judicial review and is arbitrary, whimsical and against the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, thus liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner deserves to be released forthwith.

4. The prison systems are based on the theory of Reformation, which promotes humanistic principle that even if an offender commits a crime, he does not cease to be a human being. The reformative theory is also known as rehabilitative sentencing. The purpose of punishment is to ‘reform the offender as a person, so that he may become a normal law abiding member of the community once again. The spirit of correctional philosophy in criminology is rightly described by Justice Krishna Iyer ‘Every saint has a past and every sinner a future, never write off the man wearing the criminal attire but remove the dangerous degeneracy in him, restore his retarded human potential by holistic healing of his fevered, fatigued or frustrated inside and by repairing the repressive, though hidden, injustice of the social order which is vicariously guilty of the criminal behaviour of many innocent convicts. Law must rise with life and jurisprudence responds to humanism.

5. It is further submitted that the open prisons are established under the Refomative Theory with the object to save the long term prisoners from the ill effects of confining continuously in closed prisons and to inculcate in the prisoners a sense of self-discipline and social-responsibility. The prisoners who responds to the programme, based on trust and responsibility are selected for being sent to Open Prison. The petitioner is presently confined in the Open Prison a