Application Seeking Premature Release Cannot Be Rejected Merely On Ground That Offence Is ‘Heinous’: Madras HC
|The Madras High Court observed that rejection of application merely on the ground that the offence is “heinous’ is insufficient and while exercising the powers of discretion, the reasonings are to be given.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition assailing a decision that rejected an application seeking the premature release of a convicted prisoner.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V. Sivagnanam observed, “Mere rejection on the ground that the offence is heinous, would be insufficient for rejection of the application. While exercising the powers of discretion, the reasonings are to be given.”
Advocate M. Mohamed Saifulla appeared for the Appellant and APP E. Raj Thilak appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Petitioner sought premature release however, despite the State Committee's recommendation, based on the prisoner meeting the required criteria, the Government rejected the application, citing the heinous nature of the crime, where the convict targeted a woman who refused involvement in flesh trade and the convict had not yet served 14 years in prison because of which the remission premature.
The Court mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Joseph v. State of Kerala reported in MANU/SC/1049/2023 and quoted, “Blanket exclusion of certain offences, from the scope of grant of remission, especially by way of an executive policy, is not only arbitrary, but turns the ideals of reformation that run through our criminal justice system, on its head...The impact of applying such an executive instruction/guideline to guide the executive's discretion would be that routinely, any progress made by a long-term convict would be rendered naught, leaving them feeling hopeless, and condemned to an indefinite period of incarceration.”
“….in exercise of the powers of judicial review, the High Court has to scrutinize whether the power of discretion has been exercised diligently in compliance with the rules of natural justice or otherwise.”, the Court noted.
The Court observed, “While considering similar cases, the Government is expected to exercise its discretion uniformly, consistently and without causing any discrimination amongst the life convict prisoners. Therefore, while assigning reasons, if any similar cases are noticed, then the Government has to look into the nature of those offence and its seriousness or heinousness and thereafter take a decision.”
The Court remanded the matter back to the Government for recirculation and to decide by assigning reasons which must be consistent and uniform in the matter of deciding the application seeking premature release by the life convict prisoners.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the matter and allowed the Writ Petition.