Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Shanmuga Ganesan @ Ganesan S/o Chinnasamy – Appellant
Versus
State represented by its The Principal Secretary to Government Home (Prison-IVA) Department – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
The rejection of an application seeking premature release of convict prisoner issued in G.O.(D)No.1191, Home (Prison-IVA) Department dated 16.10.2023, is sought to be assailed in the present proceedings. The conviction imposed on the prisoner was confirmed in appeal by this Court. Since the convict prisoner completed ten years, submitted an application under the Government policy for premature release issued in G.O.(Ms)No.488, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 15.11.2021 as amended in G.O.(Ms)No.508, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 18.11.2021.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the application seeking premature release in pursuance of the G.O.(Ms)No.488, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 15.11.2021, was processed by following the due procedures. The State Committee recommended the case of the prisoner on the ground that the prisoner comply with the requirements as contemplated under the said G.O.(Ms)No.488. Recommendation was placed before the Government for taking an appropriate decision. The Government rejected the application mainly on the ground that the nature of offence committed by the life convict prisoner was brutal and he has not yet served 1
The government must provide proper reasoning for rejecting applications for premature release, ensuring uniformity and adherence to established policies.
The court emphasized that the Government must provide consistent and reasoned decisions regarding premature release applications, ensuring compliance with established policies and avoiding arbitrary ....
The court emphasized that the Government must provide consistent and reasoned decisions for premature release applications, ensuring compliance with established policies and avoiding arbitrary reject....
The Government must provide consistent and reasoned decisions when rejecting applications for premature release of convict prisoners, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.
The court emphasized that the Government must provide consistent and reasoned decisions when rejecting applications for premature release, ensuring compliance with established policies.
The Government must provide consistent and reasoned decisions when rejecting applications for premature release of life convicts, ensuring compliance with established policies.
The Government must provide specific and consistent reasons for rejecting applications for premature release of convicts, ensuring compliance with established policies and natural justice.
The court established that adherence to the Premature Release Policy is mandatory, and past offenses cannot unjustly impede eligibility for release if the requisite sentence has been served.
The court ruled that blanket exclusions from premature release based on the nature of the crime are arbitrary and violate principles of reformation, directing the Government to reconsider individual ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
