Punjab and Haryana High Court: Treat all lifers equally while mulling sentence remission

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, February 21

In a significant judgment on the premature release of convicts undergoing life imprisonment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that all lifers were equal when it came to the implementation of the policy decision on granting sentence remission. The state could not treat some lifers more equal than others.

The ruling came, as Justice Sant Parkash of the High Court allowed the premature release of a lifer, who had undergone actual sentence of more than 12 years and a total sentence of over 14 years with remissions, after he was convicted and sentenced to life on May 17, 2002. The government had deferred his premature release case for re-consideration, keeping in view the nature of the crime committed by the life convict and his involvement in three other “grave criminal offences”.

Referring to a judicial precedent, Justice Sant Parkash observed that it became clear that pardons, reprieves and remissions were “manifestation of the exercise of prerogative power”. These were not the acts of grace and were part of the constitutional scheme. It was as much an official duty as any other act vested in the authority, not for the benefit of the convict only, but for the welfare of the people.

Justice Sant Parkash further observed that the impugned order’s perusal showed that the government had deferred the petitioner’s case keeping in view the nature of the crime committed by the life convict and his involvement in three other grave criminal offences. But the petitioner was acquitted in two out of the three criminal cases. In one case, he had undergone the sentence.

Justice Sant Parkash asserted that the pre-mature release policy, dated April 12, 2002, made it clear that the life convict’s overall conduct during his confinement in jail, with specific emphasis on his conduct for the last five years from the date of his eligibility to be considered for pre-mature release, was to be seen. The petitioner had not committed any offence during the last five years and there was nothing adverse against him during the period. “The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case,” the Bench concluded.