A Case for Dignified Living
The Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling, has upheld the principle that conviction does not strip an individual of their right to live with dignity, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya’s landmark judgment in this regard has set a precedent in the realm of human rights and criminal jurisprudence.
Also read-Calcutta High Court’s Landmark Late Night Hearing Halts Lawyer’s Arrest (lawchakra.in)
The case at hand involved a petition filed by the wife of a life-term convict, challenging the Sentence Review Board’s (SSRB) decision to deny her husband’s early release. The petitioner contended that the SSRB’s decision was not in line with the jurisprudence established by the Supreme Court and other High Courts on the matter of remission.
Justice Bhattacharya, addressing the core issue, stated,
“The right of the petitioner under Article 21 to live a life of dignity cannot be deprived merely because the petitioner was convicted. The life behind bars has already been undergone by the petitioner for a considerable period. There cannot be any double punishment on the petitioner by refusing the petitioner an opportunity to reintegrate into mainstream society even if the petitioner is otherwise eligible.”
This statement highlights the court’s recognition of the enduring relevance of fundamental rights, even for convicted individuals.
Also read-“While Transfer Of Working Women, Show Sympathy” Kerala High Court (lawchakra.in)
The court scrutinized the SSRB’s decision-making process, noting that the rejection of the early release plea lacked a holistic approach as mandated by the Apex Court. The SSRB had overlooked various factors beyond the crime’s nature and the recurrence probability, which are crucial in assessing a convict’s eligibility for remission.
Moreover, the court observed that the SSRB’s reliance on a ‘cryptic’ police report, primarily focusing on the long-past crime, was inadequate. Justice Bhattacharya emphasized,
“It is well-settled that the aim of punishment in modern criminal jurisprudence is reformative and not retributive.”
This observation underscores the shift in the criminal justice system towards rehabilitation.
In its directive, the court ordered the SSRB to reconsider the plea for the convict’s premature release within a month, taking into account the guidelines indicated in the order. The court’s insistence on a comprehensive review process reflects its commitment to ensuring justice and dignity for all individuals, regardless of their legal status.
The case, Mahuya Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal and others (W.P.A 22366 of 2023), thus becomes a cornerstone in the interpretation of Article 21, affirming that the right to a dignified life extends to all, including those who have faced conviction. This ruling not only reinforces the rehabilitative aim of punishment but also serves as a reminder of the enduring nature of fundamental human rights.
Also read-Hospital Asks Questions On Virginity, Does Two-finger Test, High Court Orders Relief (lawchakra.in)