Consider Premature Release Of Prisoners Completing 20 Yrs In Jail If They Have Favourable Report From Advisory Committee: Kerala HC Tells State

For context, Rule 377 says that the term of imprisonment of a convict, who has been awarded life sentence or whose aggregate punishment for different crimes exceeds 20 years or his punishment under different heads comes up to more than 20 years, their imprisonment shall be deemed to be 20 years for the purpose of this chapter.

A division bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian in its order said:

"In the circumstances, having regard to the spirit of the decisions of the Apex Court in Rashidul Jafar and In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, we deem it appropriate to direct the Government suo motu, in public interest, to consider the cases of those prisoners who deemed to have completed the term of imprisonment in terms of Rule 377 of 2014 Rules and in whose favour there were recommendations by the Advisory Committee for premature release, as directed in the case of prisoners involved in these matters, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment". 

The court however clarified that the benefit of this judgment will not be extended to those convicts who were sentenced to imprisonment for a specific period without remission.

The Court gave this direction after noticing that a large number of prisoners who have completed the deemed period of 20 years as mentioned in Rule 377 are still in prisons even though they got a favourable recommendation from the Advisory Committee for premature release.

The Court was considering 2 appeals filed by wives of life convicts who have been under imprisonment for more than 20 years. One of them was convicted of murdering a widow and the other was convicted of killing his mother. Their total period of imprisonment will come up to over 26 years if their period of remission is also taken into account. The Advisory Committee had recommended premature release of the convicts but it was rejected by the Government. The Government rejected the recommendation for release of convicts who murdered a widow saying that he murdered a person who required special care of the society. The release of the other convict who killed his mother was denied on the ground that he killed a woman. The wives of the convicts had initially approached the Single Bench against the decision of the Government. However, the Single Bench refused to interfere with the decision of the Government. Against this order, they have approached the Division Bench.

The Court relied on Joseph v State of Kerala and observed that long term convicts who have deemed to have completed their sentence as per the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules cannot be denied the benefit of remission based on the nature of the offence committed by them in the distant past.

“As seen from the extracted passage, it was observed therein that if a prisoner who has completed 20 0r 25 years of imprisonment is excluded from consideration for premature release based entirely on the nature of crime committed by him in the past, the same would certainly crush force out of such individual, altogether. It was also observed by the Apex Court in the said case that excluding the premature release of prisoners who have served extremely long periods of incarceration, not only crusher their spirit, and instills despair, but signifies resolve of the society to be harsh and unforgiving and that the same would negate the idea of rewarding a prisoner for good conduct.”

The bench said that the Supreme Court had in essence taken the view that persons involved in offences against women and children are not entitled to premature release at all, is against the scheme of the Act and that long-term convicted prisoners cannot be denied the benefit of remission, having regard to the nature of crime committed by them in the distant past.

Accepting Supreme Court's decision in Joseph as binding precedent the bench said, "Joseph is not only the decision rendered at a later point of time, but also one which identifies the core of the issues arising for consideration in matters of this nature and answers the same elaborately and accurately. Needless to say, we accept the decision of the Apex Court in Joseph as the binding precedent. We are inclined to hold that long-term convicted prisoners, especially those who deemed to have completed the entire term of imprisonment in terms of the provisions contained in the Act and 2014 Rules, other than those who were sentenced by the convicting courts for imprisonment for a period exceeding 20 years, cannot be denied the benefit of remission having regard to the nature of the offence committed by them in the distant past". 

The Court also took into account the guidelines of the National Human Rights Commission which said that even though there can be classification among the life convicts regarding the magnitude, brutality and gravity of the offence, their period of incarceration should not exceed 25 years including remission period even in the worst cases.

The Court said that going by Section 77 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, the only policy of the State seems to be that well-behaved long-term convicts can be given premature release with the objective of their reformation and rehabilitation. The Court observed that the fact that the convicts were granted remission for more than 5 years during their period of incarceration is a proof of their good behaviour in the jail. The Court held that though the State has discretion in granting premature release to prisoners, it has to be exercised in a fair, just and reasonable manner.

The Court directed the State to reconsider the release of the 2 convicts within a month in the light of the recommendation of Advisory Committee and the observation of the Supreme Court in Joseph's case. 

Amicus Curiae: Adv. Jacob P. Alex

Counsel for the Petitioners: Adv. K. Deepa, George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil), Manu Srinath, Lijo John Thampy, Nivedita Muchilote, Riyas M. B

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates P. Narayanan (Spl G. P)

Case No: WA 1245 of 2024 & Connected Case

Case Title: Prasanna v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 255