Kerala High Court Rejects Blanket Ban on Premature Release | Calls Offence-Based Exclusion Arbitrary | Orders Fresh Consideration of Long-Term Convicts
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian held that long-term convicted prisoners, including those sentenced to life imprisonment, cannot be denied premature release solely based on the nature of the offence committed in the distant past. The Court set aside the Government’s rejection orders and remitted the matters for fresh consideration in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Joseph v. State of Kerala. The Court further directed the Government to reassess pending recommendations for similar prisoners and ensure compliance through the State Legal Services Authority.
The appeals arose from two writ petitions concerning separate prisoners undergoing life imprisonment. In both cases, the State Government had declined to consider the convicts for premature release despite multiple favourable recommendations from the Advisory Committees constituted under Section 77(1) of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010.
In the first matter, the petitioner’s husband was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of a widow with whom he allegedly had an illicit relationship. He had served 22 years, 3 months, and 19 days of imprisonment as of 10 June 2024 and had earned 6 years, 3 months, and 22 days of remission. Although recommended for release by the Advisory Committee since 2017, the Government consistently denied the request, citing the nature of the crime and its potential societal impact.
The writ petition challenging this decision was dismissed by a learned Single Judge, who upheld the Government's discretion in remission matters. The decision was based on the reasoning that crimes against women justified stricter treatment in premature release evaluations.
In the second matter, the petitioner’s husband had been convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering his mother and attempting to murder his father. As of 30 June 2024, he had served 20 years, 9 months, and 27 days of actual imprisonment and had earned 5 years, 10 months, and 10 days of remission. Despite Supreme Court directions to consider his case, and multiple favourable recommendations from the Advisory Committee, the Government again rejected the request, stating that murder of a woman, especially one’s mother, warranted exclusion from consideration.
The Government based its decision on G.O.(Ms) No.116/2022/Home dated 14.06.2022, which excluded convicts involved in the murder of women and children, among others, from the scope of general premature release guidelines formulated in 2020. The State maintained that it did not have a formal remission policy and that all such cases were decided under Chapter 36 of the 2014 Rules made under the Act.
The Court recorded, “The prisoners involved in these cases were entitled to be released prematurely on completion of imprisonment for a period of 20 years in terms of the 1958 Rules.” It further noted that Rule 377 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 deems the term of life imprisonment to be 20 years, and prisoners completing that duration are eligible for remission.
The Bench stated, “The Government has not rejected the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the ground that the prisoners are not entitled to premature release in terms of Section 77 of the Act. Instead, the recommendations were rejected having regard to the gender of the victim and the severity of the offence committed by the prisoners.”
The Court referred extensively to the Supreme Court’s decision in Joseph v. State of Kerala, observing, “Blanket exclusion of certain offences from the scope of grant of remission, especially by way of an executive policy, is not only arbitrary, but turns the ideals of reformation that run through our criminal justice system, on its head.”
It also cited the Supreme Court’s caution in Joseph that such exclusions risk, “Crushing the life force out of such individual… [and] signify society’s resolve to be harsh and unforgiving.”
The Division Bench found that, “Typecasting convicts based on the crime committed in the distant past would result in the real danger of overlooking the reformative potential of each individual convict… and result in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
Referring to other relevant precedents, the Bench stated that “The discretion has to be exercised in a fair, just and reasonable manner” and that “Excluding the relief of premature release to prisoners who have served extremely long periods of incarceration not only crushes their spirit but negates the idea of rewarding a prisoner for good conduct.”
The Court set aside the judgments under appeal as well as the orders issued by the Government that were challenged in the writ petitions.
It directed the Government to reconsider, within a period of one month, the most recent recommendations made by the Advisory Committee for the premature release of the prisoners involved in the cases.
This reconsideration was to be carried out in accordance with the findings and observations laid down by the Supreme Court in Joseph v. State of Kerala, without regard to the nature of the offences for which the prisoners had been convicted.
In addition to the case-specific directions, the Court issued broader instructions in public interest. It directed the Government, acting suo motu, to consider the cases of all prisoners who are deemed to have completed the term of imprisonment as defined under Rule 377 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014, and in whose favour recommendations for premature release had been made by the Advisory Committee. This process was to be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
To ensure compliance, the Court entrusted the implementation of these directions to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority.
It further clarified that the benefit of the judgment would not extend to prisoners who had been sentenced by the convicting courts to any specific period of imprisonment without remission, unless and until they completed the full term of imprisonment as specified by the sentencing court.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: K. Deepa (Payyanur), Advocate; George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil), Advocate; Manu Srinath, Advocate; Lijo John Thampy, Advocate; Nivedita Muchilote, Advocate; Riyas M.B., Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri P. Narayanan, Special Government Pleader
Amicus Curiae: Shri Jacob P. Alex, Advocate
Case Title: Prasanna v. State of Kerala and Others; Bindu Prakasan v. State of Kerala and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:31224
Case Number: W.A. Nos. 1245 and 2137 of 2024
Bench: Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar, Justice Jobin Sebastian
[Read/Download order]
