State Shouldn't Reject Premature Release Of Convict By Merely Citing "Heinous Crime", Must Give Reasons: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently asked the State government to reconsider and recirculate its decision to reject a life convict's pre-mature release. Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam noted that the State had rejected the request of the prisoner by merely stating that he had committed a heinous crime and that he had not served 14 years in prison. Noting that reasons were the lifeline for administrative decisions, the court observed that the government should assign proper reasons in each and every case. “Mere rejection on the ground that the offence is heinous, would be insufficient for rejection of the application. While exercising the powers of discretion, the reasonings are to be given. The reasons are lifeline for the decision taken administratively and therefore the Government, while considering the applications along with the recommendations of the State Committee, has to assign proper reasons in each and every case, since the Scheme provides for premature release of convict prisoners on completion of ten years of imprisonment,” the court observed. The court observed that under Article 226 of the Constitution, though the court could not test the policy of the State government, the court had to see if the State had exercised its power of discretion in compliance with the rules of natural justice. “The power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to ensure the processes through which the decision has been taken by the competent authorities in consonance with the statutes and rules in force, but not the decision itself. We are not in the process of testing the nature of policy of the Government for premature release of convict prisoners. However, in exercise of the powers of judicial review, the High Court has to scrutinize whether the power of discretion has been exercised diligently in compliance with the rules of natural justice or otherwise,” the court remarked. The court was hearing a petition filed by Mani @ Velumani challenging the decision of the State Government to reject his application for premature release. Mani had sought a premature release as per the Government policy for premature release issued in G.O.(Ms)No.488, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 15.11.2021. Mani informed the court that the State Committee had also recommended his case on the ground that he had complied with the requirements as contemplated under the GO. The State Committee's recommendations were placed before the Government for appropriate decision. The Government, however, rejected his application on the grounds that the nature of the offense committed by him was heinous and that he had not served 14 years in prison. Thus, the State government held that his remission would be premature. The petitioner submitted that the reasons put forward by the State would not satisfy the directives issued by the Supreme Court of India in various occasions. He thus called upon the court to interfere as the reason assigned in the order would be insufficient to sustain the order. The Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the State was empowered to exercise its discretion and in the present case, the State had concluded that it was not desirable to release the convicted prisoner since the offense committed by him was heinous. He thus called upon the court to reject the petition. The court noted that when the GO itself stipulates 10 years as the benchmark for considering the applications seeking premature release, and as the petitioner had already undergone 10 years of imprisonment, it appeared that the state's reasons for rejection were counter to its scheme. Thus, the court deemed it fit to remand the matter back to the Government to take a decision by assigning reasons which are consistent and uniform. The court thus quashed the impugned order of rejection and asked the state to reconsider the petitioner's application as expeditiously as possible preferably within 8 weeks of the order. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.M.Mohamed Saifulla Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 369 Case Title: Mr.Mani @ Velumani v The State and Others Case No: W.P.No.13235 of 2024Click here to read/download the judgment

State Shouldn't Reject Premature Release Of Convict By Merely Citing "Heinous Crime", Must Give Reasons: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags