Premature Release – Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010, Section 77 – Kerala Prisons Rules, 1958, Rule 299(c) – Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014, Rule 377 – Constitution of India, Article 14.
Blanket exclusion of prisoners convicted of murdering women from premature release held arbitrary – Denial of remission based solely on nature of offense violates reformation principles – Prisoners serving over 20 years, deemed to have completed life sentence under 1958 Rules, entitled to consideration for release – Supreme Court’s decision in Joseph v. State of Kerala (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1211) followed – Government directed to reconsider Advisory Committee’s recommendations within one month, untrammelled by offense type – Suo motu direction issued to review similar cases within two months – Role of State Legal Services Authority emphasized to ensure compliance.
Writ Appeal Nos. 1245 and 2137 of 2024
Citation: 2025:KER:31224
Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Judges: Honourable Mr. Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar & Honourable Mr. Justice Jobin Sebastian
Date of Judgment: April 11, 2025
Parties:
- Appellant (W.A. No. 1245/2024): Prasanna
- Appellant (W.A. No. 2137/2024): Bindu Prakasan
- Respondents: State of Kerala and Others
Advocates: - For Appellants: Adv. K. Deepa (W.A. 1245), Adv. George Varghese & Others (W.A. 2137)
- For Respondents: Shri P. Narayanan (Spl. G.P.), Shri Jacob P. Alex (Amicus Curiae)
Facts:
- W.A. No. 1245/2024:
- The appellant’s husband was convicted under Section 302 IPC for murdering a woman with whom he had an illicit relationship. He had served 22 years, 3 months, and 19 days of imprisonment as of June 10, 2024, with a remission of 6 years, 3 months, and 22 days (total ~29 years).
- Despite repeated recommendations by the Jail Advisory Committee for premature release since 2017, the State Government rejected the plea, citing the brutal nature of the crime against a widow. The appellant challenged this rejection in a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge, leading to this appeal.
- W.A. No. 2137/2024:
- The appellant’s husband was convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for murdering his mother and attempting to murder his father. He had served 20 years, 9 months, and 27 days as of June 30, 2024, with a remission of 5 years, 10 months, and 10 days (total ~26 years).
- The Advisory Committee recommended premature release twice, but the Government rejected it, citing a policy against releasing those convicted of murdering women. The appellant’s writ petition challenging this rejection was dismissed, prompting this appeal.
Issues:
- Whether the State Government’s blanket exclusion of prisoners convicted of murdering women from premature release is arbitrary and violative of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010, and the Constitution.
- Whether the appellants’ husbands, having served over 20 years of imprisonment, are entitled to premature release under the applicable prison rules and judicial precedents.
- Whether the Government’s discretion to deny premature release was exercised fairly, considering the prisoners’ good behavior and Advisory Committee recommendations.
Holding:
The High Court allowed both appeals, set aside the Single Judge’s judgments and the Government’s orders, and directed the State to reconsider the Advisory Committee’s recommendations for premature release within one month, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Joseph v. State of Kerala (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1211). The Court also issued a suo motu direction to the Government to consider similar cases of prisoners who have completed their deemed sentence under Rule 377 of the 2014 Rules within two months.
Reasoning:
- Applicable Legal Framework:
- The Court applied the Kerala Prisons Rules, 1958, which were in force at the time of the prisoners’ convictions, as per State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216. Rule 299(c) of the 1958 Rules deems a life sentence as 20 years of imprisonment. Both prisoners had served over 20 years, entitling them to consideration for premature release.
- Under the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010, Section 77 mandates premature release for well-behaved long-term prisoners to aid reformation and rehabilitation. The 2014 Rules (Rule 377) reinforce this by deeming life sentences as 20 years.
- Arbitrariness of Blanket Exclusion:
- The Government’s rejection of premature release based on the gender of the victim (women) or severity of the crime was deemed arbitrary, following Joseph v. State of Kerala. The Supreme Court in Joseph held that blanket exclusions of certain offenses from remission undermine reformation and violate Article 14 of the Constitution by ignoring individual reformative potential.
- The Court noted that the prisoners demonstrated good behavior (evidenced by remission earned) and had Advisory Committee recommendations, yet were denied release solely due to the nature of their crimes, which was not a valid ground under the Act or Rules.
- Conflict in Supreme Court Precedents:
- The Court addressed conflicting Supreme Court decisions (State of Haryana v. Jai Singh (2003) 9 SCC 114 and Sanaboina Satyanarayana v. Govt. of A.P. (2003) 10 SCC 78 vs. Joseph). It held Joseph as the binding precedent, being later in time and more comprehensive in addressing reformation and fairness in remission policies.
- Human Rights Considerations:
- The Court referenced National Human Rights Commission guidelines (2003), which cap incarceration at 25 years even for heinous crimes, supporting the prisoners’ entitlement to release after serving over 20 years.
- The Court emphasized that denying premature release crushes prisoners’ spirits, negates reformation, and reflects an unforgiving societal stance, as per Joseph.
- Suo Motu Directions:
- Observing that many prisoners who completed their deemed sentence under Rule 377 were languishing in jails despite favorable recommendations, the Court directed the Government to proactively review such cases within two months, with oversight by the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, aligning with Rashidul Jafar v. State of U.P. (2024) 6 SCC 561 and In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail.
Disposition:
- The impugned judgments and Government orders were set aside.
- The State was directed to reconsider the prisoners’ premature release within one month, untrammelled by the nature of their offenses, in line with Joseph.
- A broader directive was issued for the Government to review similar cases within two months, ensuring compliance with reformation-focused prison laws.
Significance:
This judgment reinforces the principle that reformation and rehabilitation are central to India’s criminal justice system, prohibiting arbitrary exclusions from remission based on offense type. It aligns with constitutional guarantees under Article 14 and emphasizes judicial oversight to ensure fair exercise of executive discretion in prison management.