"Latitude Given By Constitution Cannot Be Caged In Form Of Inflexible Guidelines"- SC On Kerala Policy Excluding Certain Convicts From Remission

A Supreme Court Bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta has reprimanded a Kerala policy practice and said that typecasting convicts through inflexible guidelines based on crimes committed several years ago undermines their reformative potential, and can crush the life force out of such individuals.

Subsequently, the Apex Court ordered the release of a man who had been imprisoned for 26 years after his conviction for robbing and murdering his sister-in-law.

In that context, it was said that, "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. Grouping types of convicts, based on the offences they were found to have committed, as a starting point, may be justified. However, the prison laws in India – read with Articles 72 and 161 - encapsulate a strong underlying reformative purpose. The practical impact of a guideline, which bars consideration of a premature release request by a convict who has served over 20 or 25 years, based entirely on the nature of crime committed in the distant past, would be to crush the life force out of such individual, altogether. Thus, for instance, a 19 or 20 year old individual convicted for a crime, which finds place in the list which bars premature release, altogether, would mean that such person would never see freedom, and would die within the prison walls. There is a peculiarity of continuing to imprison one who committed a crime years earlier who might well have changed totally since that time."

Counsel Adolf Mathew appeared for the convict, while Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for the State.

In this case, the convict had approached the Apex Court after the State government rejected his application for remission.

The incident in question occurred in 1994, and initially, the accused was acquitted by the Trial Court in 1996. However, the High Court later overturned this acquittal in 1998, sentencing the accused to life imprisonment for charges including rape, murder, and robbery.

In 2000, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused of the rape charge but upheld the rest of the High Court's verdict.

The convicted individual subsequently applied for remission or early release from prison. While the Jail Advisory Board approved his application on three separate occasions over the years, the State government consistently rejected it.

Notably, in April 2022, the Kerala government excluded certain categories of convicts from benefiting from remission. This included individuals involved in exceptionally cruel murders, those who committed murders of women and children, or those who committed murder alongside rape. Additionally, individuals undergoing treatment for mental illness whose relatives were unwilling to accept them were also excluded from remission benefits.

The Apex Court stressed that it is settled law that the remission policy prevailing on the date of conviction has to be applied unless a more liberal policy is subsequently put in place. In that context, the Court further noted that in the petitioner’s case, the 1958 Rules are clear – a life sentence, is deemed to be 20 years of incarceration. After this, the prisoner is entitled to premature release.

In light of the same, the Court observed that, 'At this juncture, redirecting the petitioner who has already undergone over 26 years of incarceration (and over 35 years of punishment with remission), before us to undergo, yet again, consideration before the Advisory Board, and thereafter, the state government for premature release – would be a cruel outcome, like being granted only a salve to fight a raging fire, in the name of procedure. The grand vision of the rule of law and the idea of fairness is then swept away, at the altar of procedure - which this court has repeatedly held to be a “handmaiden of justice”'

Holding that it was in the best interest of justice to direct the release of the petitioner with immediate effect, the Court noted that, "Rule 376 of the 2014 Rules prescribes that prisoners shall be granted remission for keeping peace and good behaviour in jail. As per the records produced by the State, the petitioner has earned over 8 years of remission, thus demonstrating his good conduct in jail. The discussions in the minutes of the meetings of the Jail Advisory Board are also positive and find that he is hardworking, disciplined, and a reformed inmate."

Cause Title: Joseph v. The State of Kerala & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment