The Punjab and Haryana High Court has remitted the matter of pre-mature release of a life convict to the Authorities for fresh consideration and imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the State for not dealing with his case in a timely and conscientious manner. The High Court called the case an un-rooting illustration of lack of due diligence, reflecting an apathetic approach.

The High Court was considering a Criminal Writ Petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the authorities for the grant of premature release. The Petitioner was convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC and was awarded a sentence to undergo life imprisonment.

The Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel asserted, “The case at hand is an un-rooting illustration of lack of due diligence, reflective of an apathetic approach. Such a lethargic conduct can be curbed only if the Courts, across the system, adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such comportment. The imposition of costs, is a necessary instrument, which has to be deployed to weed out, such an unscrupulous conduct. Ergo, this Court deems it appropriate to saddle the respondent authorities with costs, which indubitably ought to be veritable and real time in nature.”

“The State of Punjab is saddled with costs of Rs.25,000/-, which shall be paid to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today”, it ordered.

Advocate Deepak Verma represented the Petitioner, while AAG Gurpartap S. Bhullar represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the petitioner’s case that his claim for pre-mature release fell squarely within the ambit and operation of the notification dated July 8, 1991, and the Pre-Mature Release Policy, 2017, promulgated by the Government of Punjab. It was further contended that the impugned orders vide which the prayer for pre-mature release was denied were passed sans any reasoning for such denial.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the sequence of events, the Bench stated that the same reflected a sordid state of affairs at the end of the respondent-authorities while evaluating and adjudicating the case of the petitioner for premature release. “The several rounds of exchange of communications between the prison authorities and the ADGP (Prisons), Punjab before putting up the case for consideration lays bare a lackadaisical approach of the authorities towards the cause of the petitioner. The case of petitioner for consideration of the authorities regarding premature release was initiated by Jail Authorities on 27.05.2022 and finally could be forwarded to the competent authority only on 08.12.2023 after a lapse of more than 1-½ years”, it noted.

The Bench further noticed that the competent authority passed a cryptic order without due application of mind to the relevant material through an objective reasoning, while taking a year to pass such an order. “Furthermore, a perusal of impugned order dated 17.12.2024 reveals that the same has been passed by the authorities with a notion that the premature release of the petitioner from prison requires subjective satisfaction. The said inference on part of the State is liable to be rejected, being fallacious”, it added.

“In this constitutional backdrop, it becomes incumbent upon State-authorities, while adjudicating upon the claim of an individual for pre-mature release, to act in adherence not only to the principles of natural justice but also to the higher constitutional mandate flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The exercise of such statutory or administrative discretion must, therefore, be informed by reason, guided by relevant considerations and culminate in a reasoned and speaking order reflecting due application of mind. An order bereft of cogent reasoning or passed in a mechanical manner would be antithetical to the constitutional ethos of fairness in administrative action and would render the decision unsustainable in the eyes of law”, the order read.

As per the Bench, the Petitioner’s plea for premature release was entitled to be considered after undergoing actual imprisonment of 14 years and 20 years imprisonment with remission. Moreover, it was admitted by the State that the case of the petitioner was covered by the said criteria mentioned in that Policy.

The Bench disposed of the petition by remitting the matter back to the respondents with a direction to decide the entitlement of the petitioner for premature release, in accordance with law, by passing a fresh reasoned and speaking order, within four weeks.

Click here to read/download Order

Cause Title: Ramji v. State of Punjab and others (Neutral Citation:2025: PHHC:143124)


Punjab & Haryana High CourtJustice Sumeet Goel

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.