Can a State release some life convicts under its own policy and hold back an equally eligible one? The Punjab and Haryana High Court says it cannot, quashing a one-year deferment of premature release and warning that punishment must not be distorted into “savage justice”.
Chandigarh: Haryana cannot pick and choose among equally eligible convicts under its own Premature Release Policy, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held, setting aside a Government order of August 24, 2026 that rejected a life convict’s plea for premature release and deferred his case by a year [Petitioner v. State of Haryana & Ors.].
The competent authority has been told by Justice Sumeet Goel to decide the petitioner’s case afresh within four weeks, strictly in line with the policy and the binding precedents on premature release.
Liberty, and why selective release fails
Justice Goel held that the policy applies equally to every convict and bears directly on rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. A convict who is eligible under it cannot be refused the concession unless the State records reasons.
“For a convict serving a life sentence, liberty has to be the most precious of possessions. It should not be assumed that all convicts when released will unleash revenge onto their prosecutors.”
“The State cannot indulge in cherry picking and only provide the concession of premature release to a select few out of the pool of similarly situated convicts and such approach is highly inequitable.”
Support came from the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Joseph v. State of Kerala, which held that excluding convicts from remission solely because of a crime committed long ago crushes the life force out of the individual and violates Article 14. The Court accepted that the petitioner had committed grave offences. A duly enacted policy, it said, must still be honoured and applied to each case in letter and spirit.
The conviction and the petition
The Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, convicted the petitioner in February 2009 under Section 460 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court dismissed his appeal in 2013.
His plea rested on parity: three similarly placed co-convicts had already been ordered to be released. He relied on the State’s Premature Release Policy of August 13, 2008, the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, and the High Court’s rulings in Pohlu @ Polu Ram v. State of Haryana and Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana.
The State’s defence
Haryana justified the deferment by pointing to the heinous nature of the crime. The Court recorded, though, that the State could not dispute that the petitioner met the conditions laid down in the policy.
What the authority must weigh
The judgment lists the factors to be considered: the convict’s conduct in jail, his state of mind, the gravity of the offence, his social background and his behaviour while on parole. The reformative theory, the Court said, compels a look beyond “the one fateful act” of an offender, and prisons must be seen as places of rehabilitation as well as punishment. It closed by quoting Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer:
“Social Justice is the signature tune of our Constitution and the little man in peril of losing his liberty is the consumer of Social Justice.”
Why the judgment matters
A convict cannot demand premature release as of right, but the courts have consistently held that a remission policy, once framed, must be applied fairly and uniformly. The seriousness of the original crime is no fallback for denying release to an eligible convict, since the policy itself already accounts for the nature of the offence.
For prison authorities the ruling carries two practical points: a refusal or deferment must give reasons tied to the policy criteria, and similarly placed co-convicts cannot be treated differently without justification. It also restates the reformative purpose of sentencing at the stage where it matters most, after many years behind bars.
Case Title: Petitioner v. State of Haryana & Ors. (premature release writ)
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Impugned Order: August 24, 2026
For the Petitioner: Advocate Lajpat Rai Sharma
For the State: Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana