Premature release not a right; requires G.O. fulfillment or Advisory Board satisfaction; independent consideration per accused.

[Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.]

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order issued by the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.1369, dated 26.10.2025 and for a direction to the first respondent to prematurely release the petitioner, who is undergoing sentence at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

2. Heard Mr.K.Navaneetharaja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner, along with 11 other accused persons, underwent trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC I, Tirunelveli, in S.C. No.697 of 2000 and the petitioner was arrayed as A2 in that case. By judgment, dated 05.02.2004, except A12, all others were awarded life sentence on three counts. The said judgment was confirmed by this Court in Crl.A.(MD) No.621 of 2004, by judgment dated 12.12.2008. As per the counter filed by the respondents, the petitioner failed to surrender and was later secured by the Police and re-admitted to prison on 11.08.2009 and from then on, the petitioner has been undergoing sentence. The judgment passed by this Court has become final, since no further appeal was filed before the Apex Court.

4. The petitioner made a representation seeking premature release and the same came to be rejected by the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 26.10.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.

5. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that A8 to A11 were granted premature release in the very same case and therefore, the petitioner must also be considered on the same yardstick. Hence, the impugned Government Order passed by the first respondent is arbitrary and discriminatory.

6. In reply, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the respondents submitted that the representation made by the petitioner was considered under four Government Orders and ultimately by the Advisory Board. Insofar as G.O.Ms. No.873, dated 04.09.2006, as on the recurring date, the petitioner did not fulfil the criteria and therefore, the petitioner was not eligible under this Government Order. Insofar as G.O.Ms. No.488, dated 15.11.2021 and G.O.Ms. No.430, dated 11.08.2023, both these Government Orders contain a specific clause to the effect that where an accused is involved in more than one murder, they will not be entitled to be considered for premature release. Since, in the case on hand, it is a triple murder case, both these Government Orders were not applicable to the petitioner.

7. While considering the premature release of the petitioner under G.O.Ms.No.64, dated 25.02.2018, as on the recurring date, the petitioner had undergone sentence only for a period of 9 years, 7 months and 13 days and had not completed 10 years. Therefore, the petitioner was not found eligible for premature release.

8. Ultimately, the matter was considered by the Advisory Board.

The minimum criteria for considering premature release was fulfilled by the petitioner, since he had undergone 14 years of imprisonment as on 05.09.2022. However, the Advisory Board rejected the request on the ground that the petitioner was involved in a heinous crime and had failed to surrender even after the dismissal of the criminal appeal and had to be secured by the Police later. Since he was re-admitted to prison only on 11.08.2009, the Advisory Board decided to reject the claim of premature release made by the petitioner.

9. In the considered view of this Court, premature release cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the convict has to fulfil the conditions