Kerala High Court Directs State To Consider Cases Of Prisoners Completing 20 Yrs Imprisonment Based On Advisory Committee’s Recommendations For Premature Release
|The Kerala High Court emphasised that granting early release to prisoners is a matter related to their fundamental human rights.
The Kerala High Court has directed the State Government to consider the cases of the prisoners who have completed 20 years of imprisonment and in whose favour there are recommendations by the Advisory Committee for premature release.
The Court directed thus in Writ Appeals filed by the wives of the prisoners, challenging the Order of the Single Judge.
A Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian ordered, “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 Bench emphasised that granting early release to prisoners is a matter related to their fundamental human rights.
Advocates Deepa K. Payyanur and Manu Srinath appeared for the Appellants while Special Government Pleader (SGP) P. Narayanan appeared for the Respondents. Jacob P. Alex was appointed as the Amicus Curiae.
Facts of the Case
In the lead case, the Appellant’s husband was undergoing imprisonment for life pursuant to his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for having committed the murder of a woman with whom he was having an illicit relationship. He had undergone 22 years, 3 months, and 19 days of imprisonment and also earned a remission of 6 years, 3 months, and 22 days. The period of sentence would work out to be approximately 29 years. Although his case was recommended by the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 77(1) of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010 for premature release from the year 2017 onwards, the same was not accepted by the Government.
The Appellant, therefore, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court seeking direction to the Government to consider her husband’s case for premature release. The Government had issued an Order holding that her husband’s case being a case involving the brutal murder of a widow who requires special care in the society, his premature release would facilitate offences against women and hence, the case cannot be considered for premature release. This Order was challenged by the Appellant but the Single Judge dismissed her Writ Petition. Being aggrieved, she filed the Writ Appeal.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “The National Human Rights Commission has received a number of representations pointing out that the State Governments are applying differing standards in the matter of premature release of prisoners undergoing life imprisonment. After considering the response received from a number of States/Union Territories, the Commission fixed guidelines and the same were communicated to all the State Governments/Union Territories on 26.09.2003.”
The Court noted that the prisoners involved in these cases were entitled to be released prematurely on completion of imprisonment for a period of 20 years in terms of the 1958 Rules, and hence, these are apt cases where the Court should direct the Government to release the prisoners with immediate effect.
“It has come to the notice of this Court while considering these matters that a large number of prisoners who deemed to have completed their entire term of imprisonment in terms of Rule 377 of 2014 Rules, are languishing in jails in the State, despite recommendations in their favour made by the Advisory Committee under Section 77 of the Act as in the case of the prisoners involved in these matters and the directions issued by the Apex Court in In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail”, it added.
The Court concluded that it shall be the endeavour of the State Legal Services Authority to implement the directions issued in the Judgment, and clarified that those prisoners who were sentenced for imprisonment for any specified period by the concerned convicting Courts, without remission, will not be entitled to the benefit of the Judgment, before completing the period of imprisonment specified by the convicting Courts.
Accordingly, the High Court issued necessary directions.
Cause Title- Prasanna v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:31224)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Deepa K. Payyanur, Manu Srinath, George Varghese, Lijo John Thampy, Nivedita Muchilote, and Riyas M.B.
Respondents: SGP P. Narayanan and Amicus Curiae Jacob P. Alex.