Premature Release Cannot Be Denied Solely On Police Report: Tripura High Court

The Tripura High Court recently intervened in a suo moto petition to set aside a decision by the State Level Committee that denied premature release to seven convicts solely on the basis of a Police Verification Report. The division bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit held that the notification governing premature release does not contemplate such a report as a ground for denial.

Background of the Case

The court was hearing a suo moto writ petition, initiated following directions from the Supreme Court, to monitor the implementation of remission and premature release policies in the state. The seven convicts had already served substantial prison terms ranging from 15 to 21 years. Despite recommendations from the Superintendent of the concerned prison, the State Level Committee, in its meeting on 21.08.2026, declined their premature release. The committee cited a Police Verification Report as the basis for its decision.

Arguments Presented

The Advocate General, Mr. S M Chakraborti, argued that the committee's decision was only an interim view and that the final authority rested with His Excellency the Governor of Tripura. However, the court was not persuaded by this submission.

Legal Analysis

The court scrutinized the notification dated 03.09.2025 issued by the Home (Jail) Department, Government of Tripura, which amended the norms for premature release. It noted that the notification made no mention of a Police Verification Report as a criterion for denial. The bench observed that the State Level Committee had failed to apply its mind to the proper principles governing premature release and had instead relied on an extraneous factor not sanctioned by the rules.

Key Observations

“The notification dt.03.09.2025 issued by the Home (Jail) Department, Government of Tripura amending the norms for premature release nowhere mentions about the Police Verification Report, but the State Level Committee, without properly applying its mind to the principles to be applied for considering premature release, has declined their premature release on the basis of the said report,” the bench stated.

The court further emphasized, “we are of the view that the State Level Committee is not absolved of its responsibility to properly consider the case of each of the 7 (Seven) convicts for premature release strictly in accordance with the norms.”

Court's Decision

The High Court set aside the decision of the State Level Committee taken on 21.08.2026 and directed the committee to reconsider the matter in light of the norms laid down in the notification. The case has been listed for further hearing on 07.10.2026. This ruling reinforces the principle that premature release decisions must adhere strictly to the governing rules and cannot be based on considerations not provided for in the policy.