The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for the government to consider cases objectively, ensure transparency, and strictly follow rules while granting paroles and premature release.

J.B. Koshy, J.:

This is suo motu proceedings taken by this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) for giving effect to the orders under the Code and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and alleged violation of Sec.433-A of the Code to secure ends of justice. We have appointed Shri.K.B. Suresh, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. Director General of Public Prosecutions and State Prosecutor Shri. P.V. Madhavan Nambiar appeared and produced all the relevant files and rules. At the outset, we appreciate the assistance given to the Court by Sri.P.V. Madhavan Nambiar, State Prosecutor and Shri. K.B. Suresh, Advocate (Amicus Curiae).

2. When criminal appeals were posted before the Division Bench, this Court noticed that several of the convicts were on parole and those who are sentenced for life on conviction for an offence for which death is one of the punishment provided under law are released within six or seven years of imprisonment. Paroles and remissions were granted indiscriminately. Since cold-blooded murders, whether political or otherwise, were on the increase, this Court decided to look into the matter. The then Director General of Public Prosecutions submitted before us that the Government have got absolute powers under Art. 161 of the Constitution of India to give remissions and large number of convicts were released in a single stroke especially in 1998, 1999 and 2000. It was submitted that orders were passed after considering the recommendations of the State Prison Review Committee. Therefore, we have called for the files containing the reports of the Committee also. We were also informed that certain convicts who have done heinous crimes are given paroles indiscriminately covering up most of their sentences and then they were given premature release. They were actually undergoing imprisonment for one or two years only even though they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. There were also reports to the effect that persons who were on parole are again committing crimes and some of them are reported to have absconded and failed to return to the jail after the parole period. But, the convicts who are not having political or financial influence are not given parole and several complaints from the convicts were received in this aspect.

3. We have called for the rules for granting parole etc. Only in rarest of rare cases, capital punishment is now being imposed and, therefore, even though offences are heinous, only lesser punishment of life imprisonments are given. Life imprisonment means sentence upto the end of life. But, almost majority of the convicts are released after six or seven years of imprisonment and this is an encouragement given by the State to commit more crimes. Therefore, we have looked into the files relating to the premature release and grant of paroles and we are of the opinion that some guidelines are necessary in such cases.

4. Under Sec.432 of the Code, the appropriate Government has got power to remit sentence. Sec.432 of the Code is as follows:

“432. Power to suspend or remit sentences: (1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.

(2) Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record or the trial or of such record thereof as exists.

(3) If any condition on which a sentence has been s