The policy in effect at the time of conviction must be the primary consideration for determining premature release, unless a more liberal policy is subsequently adopted.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, C.J.

Undeniably, the petitioner was convicted for committing a heinous crime, i.e., dacoity coupled with the murder and was sentenced for life. As on date, he has undergone 25 years of incarceration and has approached the Court challenging the decision of the State Sentence Review Board where the application for premature release was rejected.

2. Indubitably, three applications filed by the petitioner after undergoing a substantial period of imprisonment were rejected by the State Sentence Review Board and last of such rejection order is assailed in the instant writ petition. The challenge is thrown on multiple grounds, one of which appears to have been taken a front seat that the said State Sentence Review Board while considering an application for premature release ought not to have relied upon the policy taken in a Resolution of the Law Department duly notified in an official gazette on 19^th April, 2022. An incidental plea is also taken that the similarly circumstanced person was considered by the said Board on the basis of the earlier policy and not on the basis of the policy taken on 2022, and therefore, the act of discrimination is manifestly evident therefrom. We intend to give our anxious thought to the pivotal issue raised by the petitioner touching upon the applicability of a policy to be borne in mind or to be applied at the time of considering the application for premature release.

3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the law in this regard is somewhat settled that the policy which was prevalent at the time of conviction shall be the guiding factor in considering an application for premature release. It is further submitted that there is no absolute bar in taking into consideration the subsequent policy provided such policy is more liberal and enure to the benefit of the convict. To buttress the said legal aspect, reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Joseph v. State of Kerala and others reported in 2023 SCC On Line SC 1211, Hitesh @ Bavko Shivshankar Dave v. State of Gujarat reported in (2024) 5 SCC 623 and Rajkumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2024) 9 SCC 598.

4. It is thus submitted that the Board has not only acted contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court, but also ignored the vital documents produced before it. It is lastly submitted that the decision of the Board is unacceptable and liable to be interfered with as no reasons were provided for discarding the favourable report submitted by the authorities, who are in the helm of such affairs.

5. The counsel for the State submits that the Board has taken a conscious decision on the materials available from the record and the policy framed by the Government does not put any fetter on the Board to take an independent decision de hors the other recommendations given by the authority. In other words, he submits that the Board is not bound by any other recommendations as it is required to take an independent and conscious decision whether the applicant seeking release deserves to be released prematurely and such decision based upon a policy of the Government should seldom interfered by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the Writ Court should not expand its horizon to find the fault in the decision of the administrative authority but should confine its consideration to a process by which such decision has been arrived. If the entire process cannot be faulted with, the writ court should not interfere with the d