The Government must provide consistent and reasoned decisions when rejecting applications for premature release of life convicts, ensuring compliance with established policies.

ORDER :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

The rejection of an application seeking premature release of convict prisoner issued in G.O.(D)No.300, Home (Prison-IVA) Department dated 11.03.2024, is sought to be assailed in the present proceedings. Since the convict prisoner completed fourteen years, submitted an application under the Government policy for premature release issued in G.O.(Ms)No.430, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 11.08.2023.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the application seeking premature release in pursuance of the G.O.(Ms)No.430, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 11.08.2023, was processed by following the due procedures. The Government rejected the application mainly on the ground that the nature of offence committed by the life convict prisoner was heinous and his remission would be premature and prejudicial to justice.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner Mr.M.Mohamed Saifulla would contend that the said blanket reason would not satisfy the directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The reasons assigned in the impugned Government Order would be insufficient to sustain the order and thus this Court has to interfere.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Raj Thilak would oppose by stating that the Government is empowered to exercise its discretion to release a prisoner prematurely. The Government, after going through the records, arrived at a conclusion that it is not desirable to release the convict prisoner in the present case, since the nature of offence committed by the life convict prisoner was heinous. Thus, the writ petition is to be rejected.

5. The power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to ensure the processes through which the decision has been taken by the competent authorities in consonance with the statutes and rules in force, but not the decision itself. We are not in the process of testing the nature of policy of the Government for premature release of convict prisoners. However, in exercise of the powers of judicial review, the High Court has to scrutinize whether the power of discretion has been exercised diligently in compliance with the rules of natural justice or otherwise.

6. No doubt the impugned rejection order states that the application for premature release was rejected on the ground that the nature of offence committed by the convict prisoner is heinous and his remission would be premature. Whether such reasoning is warranted or not with reference to other similarly placed cases where premature release were considered, is to be looked into by the Government. While considering similar cases, the Government is expected to exercise its discretion uniformly, consistently and without causing any discrimination amongst the life convict prisoners. Therefore, while assigning reasons, if any similar cases are noticed, then the Government has to look into the nature of those offence and its seriousness or heinousness and thereafter take a decision. Mere rejection on the ground that the offence is heinous, would be insufficient for rejection of the application. While exercising the powers of discretion, the reasonings are to be given. The reasons are lifeline for the decision taken administratively and therefore the Government, while considering the applications for premature release, has to assign proper reasons in each and every case, since the Scheme provides for premature release of convict prisoners on completion of fourteen years of imprisonment.

7. It is relevant to rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Joseph v. State of Kerala reported in MANU/SC/1049/2023 dated 21.09.2023, wherein the following observations are made:-

“28. To issue a policy directive, or guidelines, over and above the Act and Rules framed (where the latter forms part and parcel of the former) and undermine what they encapsulate, cannot be countenanced. Blanket exclusion of certain offences, from the scope of grant of rem