Procedural safeguards in remission applications must be strictly followed, and reliance on insufficiently reasoned opinions can render decisions unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

OM NARAYAN RAI, J.

1. This writ petition is at the instance of a life convict. He assails an order dated December 24, 2024 passed by the Principal Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal whereby his prayer for premature release upon remission of his sentence of life imprisonment has been rejected.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. The petitioner was arrested on May 02, 2003 in connection with New Market Police Station Case No. 113 initiated on April 12, 2003 under Sections 302 /34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter “ IPC ”). He and his co-accused were thereafter committed for trial in S.T. No. 2 of November 2003/S.C. No. 80/2003.

3. Ultimately, the petitioner and his co-accused were convicted under Sections 302 /34 IPC by a judgment and order dated March 19, 2005 passed by the Learned Judge, XII^th Bench, City Civil and Sessions Court, Calcutta, in S.C. No. 80/2003 and both the accused persons were sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5000/- each. In default of payment of fine they were sentenced to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two years.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction the petitioner approached this Court by filing an appeal being CRA No. 309 of 2005. The said appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by a judgment and order dated December 17, 2013. The petitioner carried the matter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition which too was dismissed by an order dated July 07, 2014. The petitioner has thereafter remained in custody.

5. The petitioner’s case for premature release (along with several others) was considered by the State Sentence Review Board (hereafter “SSRB”) in its 69^th meeting held on September 02, 2022 and the petitioner’s case was recommended for premature release.

6. As the petitioner was not released despite the recommendation, the petitioner’s wife followed up with a representation dated February 23, 2024 to the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal requesting for the petitioner’s premature release. The said representation too could not lead to a release order. The petitioner’s wife therefore approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WPA 16927 of 2024 praying inter alia, for a direction upon the respondent to take steps and to act on the basis of the recommendation of the 69th Meeting of the SSRB.

7. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated November 20, 2024 thereby directing the Judicial Secretary to take steps to consider and dispose of the prayer of the petitioner in line with the recommendation made by the SSRB at the earliest.

8. Pursuant to the said order dated November 20, 2024, the Principal Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal passed the order impugned thereby holding that the petitioner was not entitled to remission and premature release. The order indicates that upon the SSRB’s recommendations being communicated to the Judicial Departmen