Overarching Goal Of Punishment Is Deterrence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Stresses Rehabilitation In Premature-Release Cases

The Court was hearing an Article 226 petition challenging an order rejecting and deferring the petitioner’s premature-release case for one year.

A Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel observed: “It would be naive to hope for a society without crime, however, it would be in line with the welfarist approach of State to make an attempt towards rehabilitation of offenders and allow them to reshape themselves as a functional member of the society. The overarching goal of punishment is deterrence and the sentiment must not be weaponised to glamorise savage justice. People from all walks of life hold the idea of liberty close to their heart and have historically done everything in their power to not part from it. For a convict serving a life sentence, liberty has to be the most precious of possessions.”

The Court added: “It should not be assumed that all convicts when released will unleash revenge onto their prosecutors. The convict's conduct in jail, state of mind, gravity of the offence, social background and behaviour while on parole must be duly considered before deciding upon the question of his premature release.”

Advocate Lajpat Rai Sharma appeared for the petitioner. Additional Advocate General Gurmeet Singh appeared for the State of Haryana.

Background

The petitioner was serving a life sentence for grave offences committed along with other accused. According to the petitioner, some similarly placed co-convicts had already been granted premature release.

In an earlier round of litigation, the High Court directed the authorities to determine whether the petitioner stood on an equal footing with the released co-convicts and, if so, to extend equal treatment under Article 14.

According to the petitioner, the authorities initially rejected his request on the ground that he had not completed the stipulated sentence. He said that, following another judicial direction requiring a reasoned decision, the State again rejected and deferred his case for a year to assess his conduct.

The petitioner submitted that the impugned decision relied upon the heinous nature of the crime and his involvement in eight other cases. The State defended the deferment on the ground that he had committed a heinous offence, but did not dispute his fulfilment of the conditions under the applicable premature-release policy.

Court’s Observations

Criminal Justice Must Facilitate Reformation

The Court observed that correctional institutions should not be regarded only as places where punishment is carried out. Their purpose also extends to rehabilitation and providing offenders an opportunity to return to society as law-abiding members.

The Court observed: “The theory of reformation and rehabilitation that emerged in the 18th century aims at separating the criminal from the crime and compels us to look beyond the one fateful act committed by him. In a civilized society like ours, it would be truly unfortunate, if an offender is not given the opportunity to realize and fully fathom his mistake and channel that awareness into making fruitful contributions in society. The peno-correctional institutes must not only be looked at as a place, where punishment is carried out, but also a place of rehabilitation.”

Relying on Joseph v. State of Kerala (2023), the Court noted that the Supreme Court had disapproved inflexible guidelines which typecast convicts solely by the crimes committed in the distant past, because they could overlook each prisoner’s reformative potential.

The Supreme Court had observed: “Classifying - to use a better word, typecasting convicts, through guidelines which are inflexible, based on their crime committed in the distant past can result in the real danger of overlooking the reformative potential of each individual convict.”

State Must Apply Its Policy Equally

The Court held that a State policy governing premature release applies equally to all convicts and directly affects their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21.

It held that once a convict becomes eligible for consideration under the applicable policy, the State cannot deny the concession without recording reasons or treat similarly situated prisoners differently without an intelligible basis.

The Court held: “The State is duty bound to act fairly and to proceed according to the policy formulated by it in a manner that does not discriminate between similarly situated persons in absence of an intelligible differentia. Non-arbitrariness is a facet in Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the State and all its agencies are required to abide by it. The State cannot indulge in cherry picking and only provide the concession of premature release to a select few out of the pool of similarly situated convicts and such approach is highly inequitable.”

Referring to Rajkumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), the Court noted that the State is bound by its rules and standing policy and cannot adopt an arbitrary yardstick for selecting premature-release cases.

Relevant Factors Must Be Considered

The Court reproduced the factors identified by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) for deciding premature-release cases.

These included whether the offence was an individual act of crime without affecting society at large; whether there was a possibility of future recurrence; whether the convict had lost the potentiality to commit crime; whether continued confinement served any fruitful purpose; and the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family and other similar circumstances.

The Court held that, notwithstanding the gravity of the petitioner’s offences, the applicable policy must be honoured and applied in its letter and spirit.

Decision Must Be Reasoned

Referring to Pohl @ Polu Ram v. State of Haryana (2024), the Court reiterated that premature-release cases cannot be mechanically rejected or deferred. The competent authority’s order must disclose application of mind.

The Court stated: “The entire edifice of exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power rests on the foundation of giving reasoned and detailed orders. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice and ensures that there is proper and due application of mind while exercising said power. Therefore, the practice of arbitrarily categorising convicts as threats to society or indiscriminately deferring their cases for premature release needs to be strongly discouraged.”

The Court observed that the authority must consider the convict’s conduct in prison, state of mind, social background, behaviour while on parole and the gravity of the offence before deciding the request.

Conclusion

The High Court set aside the order rejecting and deferring the petitioner’s premature-release request.

It directed the competent authority to reconsider and decide the case within four weeks in accordance with the applicable policy and the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, Pohl @ Polu Ram v. State of Haryana and Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana.

The Court clarified that any deviation from the policy or its directions would entitle the petitioner to seek contempt proceedings against the responsible official. The petition and pending applications were disposed of.

Cause Title: Mukesh v. State of Haryana and others (Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:19846)

Click here to read/download Judgment