http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: LAXMAN NASKAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/02/2000

BENCH: G.T.Nanavati, S.N.Phukan

JUDGMENT:

     PHUKAN, J.

     By  this common judgment we propose to dispose of  six writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution as the  points involved in all the petitions are common.   Writ petitions  have  been filed on behalf of life convicts  as their  prayer  for  pre-mature release was rejected  by  the Government  of  West Bengal.  The common grievance  is  that though  they  are  entitled  for  pre-mature  release  under relevant  rules, their prayer was rejected by the Government on  extraneous consideration.  It is settled position of law that   life   sentence  is   nothing  less   than   lifelong imprisonment  and by earning remissions a life convict  does not  acquire a right to be released prematurely;  but if the Government  has  framed any rule or made a scheme for  early release  of  such convicts then those rules or schemes  will have  to  be treated as guidelines for exercising its  power under  Article  161 of the Constitution and if according  to the  Government policy/instructions in force at the relevant time the life convict has already undergone the sentence for the  period  mentioned in the policy/instructions, then  the only right which a life convict can be said to have acquired is  the  right  to  have  his case  put  up  by  the  prison authorities  in  time before the authorities  concerned  for considering  exercise  of  power under Article  161  of  the Constitution.   When an authority is called upon to exercise its  powers under Article 161 of the Constitution that  will have to be done consistently with the legal position and the Government  policy/instructions  prevalent  at  that   time. Sub-rules  (4)  & (29) of Rule 591 of the West Bengal  Rules relating  to  premature  release  of  life  convict  run  as follows:

     (4)  In considering the cases of prisoners submitted to  it  under  sub-rules (1) and (2), the  State  Government shall  take  into consideration  (I) the  circumstances  in each  case, (ii) the character of the convicts crime, (iii) his  conduct  in  prison  and (iv) the  probability  of  his reverting to criminal habits or instigating others to commit crime.   If  the  State  Government is  satisfied  that  the prisoner  can be released without any danger to the  society or  to the public it may take steps for issue of orders  for his  release  under  section  401 of the  Code  of  criminal Procedure, 1898.

     (29)    Every case in which a convict, who  has  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

received the benefit of any of the foregoing rules, is about to  complete  a  period of 20 years of  continued  detention including remission earned, if any, shall be submitted three months  before such completion by the Superintendent of  the Jail  in  which the convict is for the time being  detained, through  the  Inspector-General,  for orders  of  the  State Government.   If the convicts jail records during the  last three  years of his detentions are found to be  satisfactory the  State  Government  may  remit   the  remainder  of  his sentence.

     All  the  life  convicts before  us  have  completed continued  detention of 20 years including remission earned. From  the  counter  filed  by the State, we  find  that  the Government  has also framed guidelines for this purpose.  To consider  the  prayer  for premature release  of  the  life convicts,  police  report was called for on  the  following points  :-  i) Whether the offence is an individual  act  of crime  without affecting the society at large;  ii)  Whether there  is  any  chance of future  recurrence  of  committing crime;   iii) Whether the convict has lost his  potentiality in  committing  crime;   iv) Whether there is  any  fruitful purpose   of   confining   this   convict  any   more;    v) Socio-economic condition of the convicts family.

     Though  the police report did not cover all the  above points,  the prayer of life convicts for premature release was  rejected mainly on the ground of objections by  police. The  police  had  only  reported about the  chances  of  the petitioners  committing  crime again.  It  becomes  apparent from  the  record that the Government did not  consider  the prayer  for  premature  release  as   per  the  rules.   The Government   did  not  pay   sufficient  attention  to   the conduct-record  of the petitioners while in jail nor did  it consider  whether  they  had   lost  their  potentiality  in committing  crime.  The relevant aspect, namely, that  there is  no fruitful purpose in confining them any more was  also not  considered  nor  the socio economic conditions  of  the convicts  family were taken into account.  Thus the  orders of  the Government suffer from infirmities and are liable to be quashed.

     In  the  result,  we set aside all the orders  of  the State  Government and direct the authorities to  re-consider the  cases for premature release of all life convicts  who have  approached us by filing present Writ Petitions as  per relevant  rules/guidelines within a period of one month from the  receipt of this order.  The Writ Petitions are  allowed to   the  extent  indicated   above.