2000 JTR(SC) 368
2000 1 AICLR 687 ; 2000 AIR(SC) 986 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 646 ; 2000 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 1010 ; 2000 1 BLJR 631 ; 2000 1 CCR(SC) 207 ; 2000 CriLR 235 ; 2000 1 Crimes(SC) 215 ; 2000 CrLJ 1471 ; 2000 2 EastCrC(SC) 434 ; 2000 1 JCC 118 ; 2000 2 JT 48 ; 2000 2 KLT(SN) 62 ; 2000 2 PLJR(SC) 72 ; 2000 1 RCR(Cri) 839 ; 2000 2 RLW(Raj) 230 ; 2000 1 Scale 530 ; 2000 2 SCC 595 ; 2000 SCC(Cri) 509 ; 2000 2 SCJ 158 ; 2000 1 SCR 796 ; 2000 1 UJ 638 ; 2000 KHC 542 ; 2000 1 Supreme 451
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.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.161, Art.32
(A) The relevant statutory provisions are Article 161 of the Constitution, which vests the Governor with the power to grant pardons, and Article 32, which provides the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. These provisions apply directly to the consideration of petitions filed by life convicts praying for premature release, where the state authority is required to exercise its powers under Article 161 in accordance with established rules and policy guidelines, and the present writ jurisdiction under Article 32 is invoked to challenge the infirmities in the order passed by the Government.
(B) Life sentence is tantamount to lifelong imprisonment and remission earned does not create a right to premature release; however, where rules provide for early release, those rules act as guidelines for the exercise of power under Article 161. An authority must consider the stipulated factors including conduct in prison, probability of recidivism, and socio-economic conditions, and the decision must not be based on extraneous considerations. A life convict who has completed 20 years of continued detention including remission has a right to have the case placed before the competent authority for reconsideration under the rules and policy guidelines.
Facts of the case:
Life convicts filed writ petitions under Article 32 alleging that their prayers for premature release were rejected by the Government of West Bengal on extraneous considerations, even though they had completed 20 years of continued detention including remission and were entitled to reconsideration under the relevant rules.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Government had framed guidelines requiring consideration of specific factors, including the nature of the offence, conduct in prison, probability of reverting to criminal habits, and socio-economic conditions. The court observed that the Government failed to consider these aspects and rejected the prayers largely on extraneous grounds, thereby rendering the orders infirm.
Issues:
Whether life convicts who have completed 20 years of detention have a right to have their cases reconsidered for premature release under the rules and guidelines; whether the rejection of their prayers based primarily on police objections without considering the stipulated factors was legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where rules provide for early release of life convicts after 20 years, the State Government is obliged to consider the cases in accordance with the laid-down guidelines, taking into account all relevant factors such as conduct, recidivism, and socio-economic background, and rejection based on extraneous considerations is unsustainable; the court must quash such orders and direct reconsideration within a specified time frame.
Result:
The writ petitions are allowed, the orders of the State Government are set aside, and the authorities are directed to reconsider the cases of all life convicts who filed the present writ petitions as per the relevant rules and guidelines within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
(A) The relevant statutory provisions are Article 161 of the Constitution, which vests the Governor with the power to grant pardons, and Article 32, which provides the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. These provisions apply directly to the consideration of petitions filed by life convicts praying for premature release, where the state authority is required to exercise its powers under Article 161 in accordance with established rules and policy guidelines, and the present writ jurisdiction under Article 32 is invoked to challenge the infirmities in the order passed by the Government.
(B) Life sentence is tantamount to lifelong imprisonment and remission earned does not create a right to premature release; however, where rules provide for early release, those rules act as guidelines for the exercise of power under Article 161. An authority must consider the stipulated factors including conduct in prison, probability of recidivism, and socio-economic conditions, and the decision must not be based on extraneous considerations. A life convict who has completed 20 years of continued detention including remission has a right to have the case placed before the competent authority for reconsideration under the rules and policy guidelines.
Facts of the case:
Life convicts filed writ petitions under Article 32 alleging that their prayers for premature release were rejected by the Government of West Bengal on extraneous considerations, even though they had completed 20 years of continued detention including remission and were entitled to reconsideration under the relevant rules.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Government had framed guidelines requiring consideration of specific factors, including the nature of the offence, conduct in prison, probability of reverting to criminal habits, and socio-economic conditions. The court observed that the Government failed to consider these aspects and rejected the prayers largely on extraneous grounds, thereby rendering the orders infirm.
Issues:
Whether life convicts who have completed 20 years of detention have a right to have their cases reconsidered for premature release under the rules and guidelines; whether the rejection of their prayers based primarily on police objections without considering the stipulated factors was legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where rules provide for early release of life convicts after 20 years, the State Government is obliged to consider the cases in accordance with the laid-down guidelines, taking into account all relevant factors such as conduct, recidivism, and socio-economic background, and rejection based on extraneous considerations is unsustainable; the court must quash such orders and direct reconsideration within a specified time frame.
Result:
The writ petitions are allowed, the orders of the State Government are set aside, and the authorities are directed to reconsider the cases of all life convicts who filed the present writ petitions as per the relevant rules and guidelines within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
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 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.
8. In the result, we set aside all the orders of the State Government and direct the authorities to re-consider the cases for premature release of all "life convicts" who have approached us by filing present Writ Petitions as per relevant rules/guidelines within a period of one month from the receipt of this order.
9. The Writ Petitioners are allowed to the extent indicated above.
Writ Petitions allowed.
*************