Liberty 'Most Precious' To Convicts, Punishment Not Be Weaponised To Glamorise 'Savage Justice': P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that the State's welfarist approach requires an attempt to rehabilitate offenders, and that the purpose of punishment must not be distorted into “savage justice”.

The Court made the observations while setting aside an order that rejected a life convict's plea for premature release and deferred his case by one year.

Justice Sumeet Goel observed,

“It would be naive to hope for a society without crime, however, it would be in line with the welfarist approach of State to make an attempt towards rehabilitation of offenders and allow them to reshape themselves as a functional member of the society. The overarching goal of punishment is deterrence and the sentiment must not be weaponised to glamorise savage justice. People from all walks of life hold the idea of liberty close to their heart and have historically done everything in their power to not part from it."

"For a convict serving a life sentence, liberty has to be the most precious of possessions. It should not be assumed that all convicts when released will unleash revenge onto their prosecutors,” it added.

The Court held that the authority deciding on premature release must duly consider the following the convict's conduct in jail, his state of mind, the gravity of the offence, his social background and his behaviour while on parole.

It concluded by quoting Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer: “Social Justice is the signature tune of our Constitution and the little man in peril of losing his liberty is the consumer of Social Justice.”

In February 2009, the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, convicted the petitioner under Section 460 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court in 2013.

The petitioner argued that three co-convicts, who were similarly placed, had already been ordered to be released. He relied on the State's Premature Release Policy of 13.08.2008, the Supreme Court's decision in State of Haryana v. Jagdish.

The High Court's decisions in Pohlu @ Polu Ram v. State of Haryana and Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana.

The State defended the deferment on the ground that the crime was heinous. However, the Court recorded that the State “could not controvert the fact that the petitioner fulfils the conditions mentioned in the Policy.”

The Court held that the State's premature release policy applies equally to all convicts and directly affects their rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21. Once a convict is eligible under the policy, the State cannot deny him the concession without recording reasons.

It added, “the State cannot indulge in cherry picking and only provide the concession of premature release to a select few out of the pool of similarly situated convicts and such approach is highly inequitable.”

The Court relied on Joseph v. State of Kerala (2023) wherein the Supreme Court held that excluding convicts from remission solely on the basis of the crime committed long ago “crush[es] the life force out of such individual” and violates Article 14.

The Court accepted that the petitioner had committed grave offences. Even so, it held that “once a duly enacted policy is in existence, it must be honoured and applied to each case in its letter and spirit.”

It added that the reformative theory “compels us to look beyond the one fateful act” of an offender, and that prisons must be seen “not only... as a place, where punishment is carried out, but also a place of rehabilitation.”

The Court set aside the order dated August 24, 2026 and directed the competent authority to decide the petitioner's case afresh within four weeks, strictly in accordance with the applicable policy and the law laid down in Jagdish, Pohlu @ Polu Ram and Pawan Kumar.

Mr. Lajpat Rai Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.