The Kerala High Court set aside an order rejecting the premature release of a man convicted of murdering a woman, who had already served 22 years of incarceration. The Court observed that the State Government’s guidelines, which classified certain offences, including the murder of a woman, as ineligible for premature release, were arbitrary, and held that such blanket exclusions undermine the ideals of reformation and that statutory discretion cannot be fettered by self-created rules or policy.

A Single Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath observed, “Even though the decision of premature release of a convict is the prerogative of the State Government, the exercise of such a plenary power cannot be left to the whims and fancies of the Government, but must be entwined with reason, after considering the relevant parameters. A blanket stance that all persons who have murdered a woman or a child shall not be prematurely released de hors any other circumstances is not conducive to a welfare State..”

The Court added, “The decision to grant remission has to be well-informed, reasonable, and fair to all concerned. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's request for premature release only on the ground that the petitioner was convicted for the murder of a woman cannot be justified.”

Advocate Smruthi Sasidharan represented the Petitioner, while Senior Public Prosecutor P. Narayanan appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner is a convict who has already undergone more than 22 years of incarceration. He was convicted of the murder of a lady by drowning and robbing her gold chain. He was convicted and sentenced to life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). His conviction was also upheld by the High Court.

Police authorities and the Probation Officer recommended the petitioner’s premature release. The Jail Advisory Committee also supported the same, and the Director General of Prisons forwarded the recommendation to Respondent No.1. However, the State Level Advisory Committee rejected it. The Government, upon detailed examination, upheld the Committee’s decision and rejected the petitioner’s claim. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the rejection.

Contentions

The Petitioner submitted that the rejection of his claim for premature release was against statutory provisions that govern the premature release of a convict, as well as against the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. He further submitted that the State Level Advisory Committee, as well as the Government, did not consider the recommendations for his release given by the probation officer, police authorities, and jail advisory committee.

The Respondents submitted that even though the State Level Advisory Committee did not recommend the premature release of the Petitioner, the Government considered the request for premature release and after examining the matter in detail, it was found that no intervention was required on the decision taken by the State Level Advisory Committee. It was also submitted that a convict does not have an indefeasible right to get a remission of sentence, and the grant of remission is solely at the executive’s discretion.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court noted that the probation officer, the superintendent of police, had recommended the premature release of the Petitioner, in addition to the superintendent of police recommending and issuing a certificate evidencing satisfactory conduct by the prisoner in prison.

The Bench observed, “The murder was committed when the petitioner was only 18 years of age, and he is now around 42 years. The police authorities, the probation officer and the Superintendent of Prisons have recommended the premature release of the petitioner. The Jail Advisory Committee has also recommended the premature release of the petitioner. These factors that have a bearing on the concept of reformation cannot be ignored on the bare premise that persons who have committed the murder of women will not be given remission of sentence. The grant of premature release is the power coupled with duty conferred on the appropriate Government in terms of Section 432 of Cr.P.C, and under the provisions of State Laws which is to be exercised by it after taking into account all the relevant factors.”

The Bench referred to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Mohinder Singh (2000), where it was held that the power of remission could not be exercised arbitrarily, and the decision to grant remission had to be well-informed, reasonable, and fair to all concerned.

The Court noted that even though the decision of premature release of a convict was the prerogative of the State Government, the exercise of such a plenary power could not be left to the whims and fancies of the Government, but must be based on reasons, after considering the relevant parameters.

The Bench also took note that in the course of routine consideration for recommending premature release, the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services had forwarded the recommendation of the Jail Advisory Committee, by which four prisoners, including the Petitioner, were recommended for the grant of premature release and the file was under process.

Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition and set aside the impugned order, directing Respondent No.1 to consider the recommendation of the Jail Advisory Committee relating to the premature release of the Petitioner within a period of three months.

Cause Title: Balu v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:27890)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Smruthi Sasidharan, V.P. Brijesh, Aswathy Amby

Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor P. Narayanan; Senior Government Pleader Sajju S.

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Kauser EdappagathKerala High Court

Namrata Banerjee

Supreme Court Correspondent

Namrata is a Correspondent covering the Supreme Court of India. She has previously practiced law and worked in-house with a Public Sector Undertaking.