Denial Of Premature Release After 32 Years Shows State Failed To Discharge Its Obligation To Reform The Convict: Calcutta High Court Orders Reconsideration Of Premature Release
Isabella Mariam
The Calcutta High Court Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray quashed a Judicial Department memo rejecting a life convict’s plea for premature release and directed the Principal Secretary to take a fresh decision within three weeks. The case concerns a prisoner who has spent about 32 years in custody for a murder conviction, whose release was earlier recommended by the State Sentence Review Board but declined on the premise that, at around 51 years of age, he could reoffend. The Bench noted that correctional homes are intended to reform offenders and enable reintegration, and that denying release after such prolonged incarceration suggests a failure of that corrective aim.
The petitioner was convicted along with his brother for an offence of murder and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life by the Trial Court in April 1995. The conviction and sentence were affirmed in appeal in 2007. Since then, the petitioner has remained in custody and has completed nearly 32 years of incarceration.
In 2022, the petitioner applied for premature release. The State Sentence Review Board considered the application and recommended premature release. The Court which had convicted the petitioner also opined in favour of premature release. There was no adverse report against the petitioner from the correctional home during his period of incarceration.
Despite these materials, the Judicial Department declined to approve the recommendation. The refusal was based on the assessment that the petitioner, being around 51 years of age, retained the capacity to commit further offences and that his premature release may pose a concern to society. No reference was made to any medical or health report while forming this opinion.
Aggrieved by the refusal, the petitioner approached the writ court. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board had not been approved by the Judicial Department. This led to the present appeal.
The Division Bench observed: “Jails” have been renamed as “Correctional Homes” with the high hope that inmates serving sentence therein for various offences will be brought back into the mainstream of society after undergoing necessary reforms and with this objective several corrective measures have been introduced. However, if after almost 32 years of serving a sentence, the petitioner's prayer for premature release is refused by the Judicial Department, the immediate impression is that the State has failed to discharge its obligation to reform the convict in the proper perspective”
It was further observed that the Judicial Department did not consider any health report of the petitioner: "Therefore, the observation of the Judicial Department which was made without taking into consideration the health report of the petitioner cannot be said to be a sound one and on such ground alone it cannot say that as he is physically fit and there are chances of the petitioner committing further offence if released prematurely".
The Court observed that prolonged incarceration must be evaluated in its proper context and stated that "It is quite possible that after 32 years of incarceration, the petitioner is a reformed person". The Bench characterised the reasoning of the Department as speculative, recording that “the logic that since the petitioner is only 51 years of age, he is in a position to commit similar or other offences, is not sound at all.”
The Court also took note that the co-convict, who stood on the same footing as the petitioner, had already secured premature release. It observed that “there are materials to show that there is a serious discrimination exercised between two convicts although they are standing on the same footing.”
The Court directed that “the opinion/order of the Judicial Department vide Memo July, 2024 rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for premature release is hereby quashed. The Principal Secretary, Judicial Department, is requested to reconsider his decision on the prayer of premature release of the petitioner with compassion and also in the light of the observation of this order within 3 (three) weeks from the date of communication of this order.”
“The order passed by the Learned Single Judge in connection with WPA No. 19984 of 2024 is set aside,” and that “the appeal is accordingly allowed. The Learned Registrar General, Calcutta High Court is requested to communicate this order to the Principal Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal immediately,” and that “a copy of this order be also conveyed to the petitioner for his information.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Advocate; Mr. Bhaskar Seth, Advocate; Ms. Sukla Das Chandra, Advocate; Ms. Swarnali Saha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vimal Kumar Shah, Advocate; Ms. Susmita Chatterjee, Advocate
Case Title: Babulal Jadab @ Babulal Yadav v State of West Bengal and Others
Case Number: MAT/1554/2025
Bench: Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, Justice Arijit Banerjee
