The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, expressed concerns over the State of Kerala’s policy dated June 4, 2022, which pertains to the premature release of convicts. The policy in question excluded the benefit of premature release to prisoners in three categories: those involved in heinous murders, those who committed murder of women and children, and those who committed murder alongside rape.
While the policy was not directly under challenge in the case being heard, the Court found it necessary to comment on its implications. The apex court, in its observations, stated that a blanket exclusion of certain offenses from the possibility of remission, especially through executive policy, is arbitrary. Such an approach is fundamentally at odds with the principles that underpin the criminal justice system, particularly those of reformation and rehabilitation.
The Court remarked,
“Blanket exclusion of certain offences, from the scope of grant of remission, especially by way of an executive policy, is not only arbitrary, but turns the ideals of reformation that run through our criminal justice system, on its head. Numerous judgments of this court have elaborated on the penological goal of reformation and rehabilitation, being the cornerstone of our criminal justice system, rather than retribution.”
The bench, comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta, was hearing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner, who had been incarcerated for over 26 years, contended that the denial of premature release violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court emphasized that the State government cannot assume the role of determining sentences for crimes based on its discretion, especially when sentencing courts are fully equipped to perform this function. The Court opined,
“While the sentencing courts may… impose term sentences (in excess of 14 or 20 years) for crimes that are specially heinous, but not reaching the level of ‘rarest of rare’ (warranting the death penalty), the state government cannot – especially by way of executive instruction, take on such a role, for crimes as it deems fit.”
The Supreme Court further highlighted that the reformative potential of each convict should be considered individually. It observed,
“Classifying – to use a better word, typecasting convicts, through guidelines that 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.”
In conclusion, the Court ordered the release of the convict in question, who had been imprisoned for over 26 years after being convicted of robbing and murdering his sister-in-law.
