The Kerala High Court has instructed the State Government to consider the premature release of prisoners who are "deemed to have completed" their sentence under Rule 377 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014, provided they have a favourable recommendation from the Advisory Committee for release.
This direction was issued by a Division Bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian, and the Court has asked the State to complete this process within two months from the date of receiving the judgment copy.
Read also: Kerala High Court: Set-Off Period Cannot Be Considered for Remission Calculation
Rule 377 states that a convict awarded life imprisonment, or those with cumulative sentences exceeding 20 years, will be considered to have completed 20 years for the purpose of release under this rule.
“In the circumstances, having regard to the spirit of the decisions of the Apex Court in Rashidul Jafar and In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, we deem it appropriate to direct the Government suo motu, in public interest, to consider the cases of those prisoners who deemed to have completed the term of imprisonment in terms of Rule 377 of 2014 Rules and in whose favour there were recommendations by the Advisory Committee for premature release...,” the Bench said.
However, the Court made it clear that this relief does not apply to convicts who were sentenced to specific imprisonment periods without remission.
The Court’s order came while considering two appeals filed by wives of life convicts who have been imprisoned for over 20 years. One was convicted of murdering a widow, and the other of killing his own mother. Including remission, both have served more than 26 years. Although the Advisory Committee supported their premature release, the Government rejected the recommendations.
The Government cited the nature of the crimes to deny their release:
- The first convict was refused release because he killed a person who needed special societal care.
- The second was rejected on the basis that he killed a woman.
The wives had earlier approached a Single Bench, which refused to intervene. They then moved the Division Bench, resulting in this current judgment.
In backing their decision, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Joseph v. State of Kerala and emphasised that the nature of the crime committed long ago cannot be the sole reason to deny remission if the convict has already served an extremely long sentence and shown good conduct.
“As seen from the extracted passage, it was observed therein that if a prisoner who has completed 20 or 25 years of imprisonment is excluded from consideration for premature release based entirely on the nature of crime committed by him in the past, the same would certainly crush force out of such individual, altogether...”
The Bench noted that according to the Supreme Court, blanket denial of release for crimes involving women or children is not consistent with the statutory scheme, and remission must be considered case-by-case.
“Joseph is not only the decision rendered at a later point of time, but also one which identifies the core of the issues... Needless to say, we accept the decision of the Apex Court in Joseph as the binding precedent.”
The Court also referred to guidelines issued by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which recommend that even in worst cases, life convicts should not serve more than 25 years, including remission.
Furthermore, the Court relied on Section 77 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, which states that reformation and rehabilitation are the primary goals of early release for well-behaved long-term convicts. The fact that both convicts received over five years of remission was seen as proof of their good behaviour in prison.
The Bench concluded that although the State has discretion in granting premature release, it must be exercised in a fair, just, and reasonable manner.
Amicus Curiae: Adv. Jacob P. Alex
Counsel for the Petitioners: Adv. K. Deepa, George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil), Manu Srinath, Lijo John Thampy, Nivedita Muchilote, Riyas M. B
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates P. Narayanan (Spl G. P)
Case No: WA 1245 of 2024 & Connected Case
Case Title: Prasanna v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Case
