1. Life convicts challenging the rejection of their prayers for premature release by the State Government despite completing the required period of detention under relevant rules. (Para 2 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 368
2000(1) Supreme 451
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
G.T. Nanavati & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Laxman Naskar etc. etc. -Petitioners
vesus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 64 of 1999
With
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 1999
With
Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 121-123 of 1999
With
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 181 of 1999
Decided on 15-2-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing : Balwant Singh Malik, Tapash, Chandra Ray, A.S. Nambiar, V.C. Mahajan, Sr. Advocates, Santosh Singh, Ms. Asha, G. Nair, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Binu Tamta, A.K. Sharma, Ms. Sushma Suri, Satish Vig, T.C. Sharma, Somvir Singh Deswal, Ms. Kusum Singh, Lakhan Singh Chauhan, Mrs. Santosh Singh, and S.K. Dwivedi, Advocates.
Important Points
While life convicts lack an automatic right to premature release, any government rules for early release serve as guidelines for exercising power under Article 161. Decisions must strictly adhere to these prescribed criteria and cannot be based on extraneous considerations or incomplete reports.
Subject
Criminal Law - Premature Release of Life Convicts
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India-Article 161-Premature release of convict-Life convicts in jail for more than 20 years-Rejection of prayer for premature release mainly on ground of objection by police-Conduct record of convict, socio economic conditions of convicts family and as to whether convict lost potentiality in committing crime not considered-Government s order suffered from infirmities-Order set aside for reconsideration of prayer.
It is settled position of law that life sentence is nothing less than lifelong imprisonment and by earning remissions a life convict does not acquire a right to be released prematurely; but if the Government has framed any rule or made a scheme for early release of such convicts then those rules or schemes will have to be treated as guidelines for exercising its power under Article 161 of the Constitution and if according to the Government policy/instructions in force at the relevant time the life convict has already undergone the sentence for the period mentioned in the policy/instructions, then the only right which a life convict can be said to have acquired is the right to have his case put up by the prison authorities in time before the authorities concerned for considering exercise of power under Article 161 of the Constitution. When an authority is called upon to exercise its powers under Article 161 of the Constitution that will have to be done consistently with the legal position and the Government policy/instructions prevalent at that time.
In the instant case to consider the prayer for premature release of the "life convicts", police report was called for on the following points :-
(i) Whether the offence is an individual act of crime without affecting the society at large;
(ii) Whether there is any chance of future recurrence of committing crime;
(iii) Whether the convict has lost his potentiality in committing crime;
(iv) Whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining this convict any more;
(v) Socio-economic condition of the convict s family.
Though the police report did not cover all the above points, the prayer of "life convicts" for premature release was rejected mainly on the ground of objections by police. The police had only reported about the chances of the petitioners committing crime again. It becomes apparent from the record that the Government did not consider the prayer for premature release as per the rules. The Government did not pay sufficient attention to the conduct-record of the petitioners while in jail nor did it consider whether they had lost their potentiality in committing crime. The relevant aspect, namely, that there is no fruitful purpose in confining them any more was also not considered nor the socio economic conditions of the convict s family were taken into account. Thus the orders of the Government suffer from infirmities and are liable to be quashed. (Paras 6 & 7)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contend that their prayers for premature release were rejected based on extraneous considerations despite their eligibility under the applicable rules and schemes. (Para 2 )
3. The Government failed to consider jail conduct, potentiality for crime, purpose of further confinement, and socio-economic conditions, relying solely on incomplete police reports. (Para 7 )
4. Where government rules for premature release exist, the state must exercise its power under Article 161 consistently with those rules and guidelines. (Para 7 )
5. Orders of the State Government set aside; authorities directed to reconsider the cases for premature release according to relevant rules and guidelines. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. How must the government exercise its power under Article 161 when considering premature release?
The power must be exercised consistently with the legal position and the government policy or instructions prevalent at the time, taking into account factors like jail conduct and the probability of recidivism. (Para 4 , 7 )
JUDGMENT
Phukan, J.-By this common judgment we propose to dispose of six writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution as the points involved in all the petitions are common.
2. Writ petitions have been filed on behalf of "life convicts as their prayer for pre-mature release was rejected by the Government of West Bengal. The common grievance is that though they are entitled for pre-mature release under relevant rules, their prayer was rejected by the Government on extraneous consideration.
3 It is settled position of law that life sentence is nothing less than lifelong imprisonment and by earning remissions a life convict does not acquire a right to be released prematurely; but if the Government has framed any rule or made a scheme for early release of such convicts then those rules or schemes will have to be treated as guidelines for exercising its power under Article 161 of the Constitution and if according to the Government policy/instructions in force at the relevant time the life convict has already undergone the sentence for the period mentioned in the policy/instructions, then the only right which a life convict can be said to have acquired is the right to have his case put up by the prison authorities in time before the authorities concerned for considering exercise of power under Article 161 of the Constitution. When an authority is called upon to exercise its powers under Article 161 of the Constitution that will have to be done consistently with the legal position and the Government policy/instructions prevalent at that time.
4. Sub-rules (4) of (29) of Rule 591 of the West Bengal Rules relating to premature release of life convict run as follows :
"(4)-In considering the cases of prisoners submitted to it under sub-rules (1) and (2), the State Government shall take into consideration -(I) the circumstances in each case, (ii) the character of the convict s crime, (iii) his conduct in prison and (iv) the probability of his reverting to criminal habits or instigating others to commit crime. If the State Government is satisfied that the prisoner can be released without any danger to the society or to the public it may take steps for issue of orders for his release under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898."
"(29)-Every case in which a convict, who has not received the benefit of any of the foregoing rules, is about to complete a period of 20 years of continued detention including remission earned, if any, shall be submitted three months before such completion by the Superintendent of the Jail in which the convict is for the time being detained, through the Inspector-General, for orders of the State Government. If the convict s jail records during the last three years of his detentions are found to be satisfactory the State Government may remit the remainder of his sentence."
5. All the "life convicts" before us have completed continued detention of 20 years including remission earned.
6. From the counter filed by the State, we find that the Government has also framed guidelines for this purpose. To consider the prayer for premature release of the "life convicts", police report was called for on the following points :-
(i) Whether the offence is an individual act of crime without affecting the society at large;
(ii) Whether there is any chance of future recurrence of committing crime;
(iii) Whether the convict has lost his potentiality in committing crime;
(iv) Whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining this convict any more;
(v) Socio-economic condition of the convict s family.
7. Though the police report did not cover all the above points, the prayer of "life convicts" for premature release was rejected mainly on the ground of objections by police. The police had only reported about the chances of the petitioners committing crime again. It becomes apparent from the record that the Government did not consider
