'Reformative Approach Over Retribution': Delhi High Court Orders Premature Release Of 1993 Bowbazar Blast Life Convict
The Delhi High Court has ordered the premature release of Md. Rashid Khan, a life convict in the 1993 Bowbazar blast case, citing reformative approach to punishment.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that Indian criminal jurisprudence has moved away from retributive theory of punishment and has embraced a reformative approach.
"Essentially, the present case pertains to the premature release of the Petitioner Md. Rashid Khan, who has been in judicial custody since 03.03.1993, i.e. for a period of approximately 33 years, while undergoing life imprisonment for the offences under TADA Act read with Section 34 IPC, for a gruesome Bomb Blast in the city of Kolkata, West Bengal. It is well settled that the Indian judicial jurisprudence has adopted a Reformative approach over retribution. The reformative approach is specifically adopted in assessing the case for premature release," the Court observed.
Rashid Khan was convicted in connection with the 1993 Bowbazar blast in Kolkata and sentenced to life imprisonment under provisions of IPC, Explosive Substances Act and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act.
Khan contended that he had spent more than 33 years in incarceration, had maintained good conduct in prison, and had demonstrated substantial reformation.
He also relied on reports indicating a positive possibility of rehabilitation and pointed out that he had been released on parole on earlier occasions without any untoward incident.
The Union Government opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioner had been convicted under TADA for offences affecting national security and that his premature release had been rejected after consideration of the gravity of the offence and adverse inputs received from law enforcement agencies.
The State of West Bengal also opposed the plea, citing the seriousness of the crime and its impact on society.
At the outset, the High Court examined the principles governing remission and premature release and noted that modern penology emphasises reformation and reintegration into society.
Reliance was placed on State of Gujarat v. High Court of Gujarat (1998) where the Supreme Court held that modern diagnosis made by criminologists is now causing a sea change to the whole approach towards crime and punishment. The emphasis involved in punishment has now been transposed from retribution to cure and reform so that the original man, who was mentally healthy, can be recreated from the ailing criminal.
In the present case, the Court took into account Petitioner's long period of incarceration, prison conduct and the reformative philosophy underlying premature release.
As such it directed Khan's release stating,
“It has been held that reformation should be the dominant objective of a punishment and during incarceration, every effort should be made to recreate the good man out of a convicted prisoner.”
Appearance: Mr. Varun Goswami & Ms. Dakshita Sharma, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, Advs. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Advocate for R-2.
Case title: Md. Rashid Khan v. Union of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021