Punjab & Haryana High Court Raps Authorities For Rejecting Life Convict's Pre-Mature Release Plea Without Reasons, Imposes Cost
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has pulled up the Punjab state authorities for rejecting a life convict's plea for premature release without assigning any reasons. Terming the decision "non-speaking" and "cryptic", the Court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the state.
Justice Sumeet Goel noted, "the competent authority passed a cryptic order without due application of mind to the relevant material through an objective reasoning—only on 17.12.2024, while taking a year to pass such order. Furthermore, a perusal of impugned order dated 17.12.2024 reveals that the same has been passed by the authorities with a notion that the premature release of the petitioner from prison requires subjective satisfaction. The said inference on part of the State is liable to be rejected, being fallacious."
The Court also highlighted that the petitioner's case for consideration of the authorities regarding premature release was initiated by Jail Authorities on 27.05.2022 and finally could be forwarded to the competent authority only on 08.12.2023 after a lapse of more than 1-1⁄2 years.
"The sequence of events as narrated in the aforesaid reply filed by the State depicts a sordid state of affairs at the end of the respondent-authorities while evaluating and adjudicating the case of petitioner for premature release in terms of policies regulating the same, as issued by the Government of Punjab. The several rounds of exchange of communications between the prison authorities and the ADGP (Prisons), Punjab before putting up the case for consideration lays bare a lackadaisical approach of the authorities towards the cause of the petitioner," it added.
These observations were made while hearing the plea of a murder convict seeking directions to authorities for grant of premature release issued by the Government of Punjab and the Pre-Mature Release Policy, 2017 on ground of the petitioner having undergone total sentence of 17 years 7 months 28 days (including parole) and 25 years 7 months 28 days
Policy on Premature Release Cannot Be Reduced to a Mere Formality
The Court observed that the Policies for premature release of prisoners as issued by the State from time to time, laying down tangible criteria therein to adjudge the suitability and entitlement of the prisoners for consideration in the realm of their premature release, cannot be rendered empty formality.
The bench made it clear that the said policy itself lays down that it is not necessary for the convict to submit his petition on completion of the required number of years of actual imprisonment. "The IG Prisons, is statutorily saddled with the liability to send the case of the concerned convict to Government on or after the eligibility date which would then obtain the report of the District Magistrate and take appropriate decision."
It said that despite the above condition stipulated in the policy, for automatic consideration of the case of convict, upon meeting the criteria, laid down of term of imprisonment undergone, no prompt action was taken by the respondent-authorities in that regard.
"Rather, the lackadaisical approach on part of the respondent-authorities while considering the case of petitioner, by unnecessarily lingering on the matter, under the garb of repeated exchange of communications amongst themselves, has failed the cause of petitioner under the said policy," it added.
"The impugned order dated 17.12.2024 does not spell out the reasons of the competent authority of its own for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The material made available to the Presiding Judge and the Committee for formulating their opinion in the matter are not forthcoming in the impugned order dated 17.12.2024. The report of the Presiding Judge and the Committee cannot be made sole basis for passing the impugned order by the State," it added.
Justice Goel highlighted that the impugned order by dint of its contents cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as a speaking order, objectively divulging the factors that weighed with the respondent-authorities while rejecting the case of the petitioner for premature release.
Lethargic Conduct Can Be Curbed Only If Court Penalizes
Concerning the slumber on part of respondent authorities, the Court found itself compelled, "to deprecate the protracted official torpor and their discernible unwillingness to discharge their solemn responsibilities in a timely and conscientious manner."
The Court opined that the case at hand is an un-rooting illustration of lack of due diligence, it said that, "reflective of an apathetic approach. Such a lethargic conduct can be curbed only if the Courts, across the system, adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such comportment. The imposition of costs, is a necessary instrument, which has to be deployed to weed out, such an unscrupulous conduct."
In the light of the above the impugned order passed on 17.12.2024was set aside and the present Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of by remitting the matter back to the respondents with a direction to decide entitlement of the petitioner for premature release, in accordance with law, by passing a fresh reasoned and speaking order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of copy of the order.
Mr. Deepak Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab.
Title: Ramji v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 411