Orissa High Court Directs Reconsideration of Life Convict’s Premature Release | Holds State Sentence Review Board Must Assess Under Applicable Policies and Avoid Arbitrary Denial
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Orissa Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman directed that the State Sentence Review Board convene a meeting to reconsider the premature release of a convict who has served twenty years of imprisonment. The Court ordered that the reconsideration be undertaken within two months from the communication of its order and made clear that the Board must not be influenced by its earlier decision rejecting the petitioner’s proposal for release. The Bench held that the rejection lacked plausible reasoning and required fresh consideration in light of subsequent enquiry reports and recommendations submitted by district authorities.
The petitioner, aged about 58 years, was convicted by the Ad hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Malkangiri on December 15, 2005, for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Trial No. 5 of 2005. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life for committing the murder of his wife and father-in-law. The conviction was upheld by the High Court on April 25, 2015, in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2006.
Having completed twenty years of incarceration, the petitioner sought premature release. In 2021, he was released on furlough and returned to custody as directed. On June 2, 2023, the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) rejected the proposal for his premature release, citing that the convict had committed double murder and was therefore ineligible under Para 6(1)(a) of the Odisha Gazette Notification No. 1174, dated April 19, 2022, titled “Guidelines for Premature Release, 2022.” The rejection was communicated by letter dated July 19, 2023.
The petitioner challenged this rejection under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, arguing that the decision was arbitrary, lacked reasoning, and was made without due consideration of subsequent enquiry reports. The petitioner’s counsel stated a report dated April 23, 2024, by the Inspector In-Charge of Mudulipada Police Station, which stated that the petitioner had attained the age of 62 years, had lost potential to commit further offences, and that no objections were raised by family members or villagers regarding his release. The Superintendent of Police, Malkangiri, endorsed this report on April 26, 2024, forwarding it to the Additional District Magistrate. Subsequently, on May 30, 2024, the Collector and District Magistrate, Malkangiri, recommended the case for premature release, noting the petitioner’s conduct and absence of objections from stakeholders.
The petitioner argued that several similarly situated convicts had been released prematurely by the Board under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and that his case merited similar consideration. The counsel referred to Rule 836 of the Odisha Model Jail Manual, 2020, which sets out the objectives of premature release, including reformation and reintegration of convicts, and to guidelines of the National Human Rights Commission which provide that convicts become eligible for release consideration after serving 14 years of actual imprisonment. Supporting precedents of the Supreme Court were also cited, including recent judgments clarifying the principles of remission and premature release.
The State opposed the petition, submitting that the SSRB had correctly applied Para 6(1)(a) of the 2022 Guidelines by treating the double murder conviction as a category of offence rendering the convict ineligible for release. The State maintained that the Board’s decision was consistent with the statutory framework.
The Court examined the enquiry report dated April 23, 2024, stating that the petitioner, at the age of 62 years, had committed the murders due to a family dispute, that his children were engaged in cultivation work, and that during his furlough in 2021, he had stayed peacefully in his village without incident. The report recorded that “any of the villagers or his family members are not protesting on the release of the convict.” It further stated that there was “less chance of future occurrence of committing the crime” and that the petitioner “may lost potentially in any crime.”
The Court recorded that the Superintendent of Police, Malkangiri, in his letter of April 26, 2024, reiterated that no objections were raised by the community or relatives of the deceased and endorsed the petitioner’s suitability for release. The Collector and District Magistrate, Malkangiri, by letter of May 30, 2024, recommended the case for favourable consideration.
The Court observed that while the SSRB had rejected the petitioner’s case in its 43rd meeting on June 2, 2023, the subsequent enquiry reports and recommendations were not before the Board at that time. The Bench stated: “The petitioner is, therefore, entitled for reconsideration by the SSRB with reference to reports and recommendations.”
On the scope of remission powers, the Court referred to Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, observing: “there is no ambiguity that appropriate State Government is empowered to remit whole or any part of the punishment to which a person has been sentenced at any time.”
The Court examined Rule 836 of the Odisha Model Jail Manual, 2020, noting that the objective of premature release is “reformation of offenders and their rehabilitation and integration into the society, while at the same time ensuring the protection of society from criminal activities.”
The Bench also cited the National Human Rights Commission guidelines of 2003, which state: “Every convicted prisoner whether male or female undergoing sentence of life imprisonment and covered by the provisions of Section 433A Cr.P.C. shall be eligible to be considered for premature release from the prison immediately after serving out the sentence of 14 years of actual imprisonment.” The Commission clarified that completion of 14 years is not an automatic ground for release but requires the Sentence Review Board to consider conduct, potential for reform, and socio-economic factors.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, 2025 INSC 969, the Bench recorded observations on the nature of remission: “An order of remission does not wipe out the offence and it also does not wipe out the conviction. All that it does is to have an effect on the execution of the sentence.” The judgment explained that remission is an executive power which frees the convict from undergoing the full term but does not alter the judicial sentence.
The Court also noted that the Supreme Court in Joseph v. State of Kerala, (2023) 12 SCR 505, held: “The remission policy prevailing on the date of conviction, is to be applied in a given case, and if a more liberal policy exists on the day of consideration, then the latter would apply.”
In its analysis, the Bench remarked that the rejection letter of July 19, 2023, did not provide plausible reasoning and failed to demonstrate that relevant materials were duly considered. The Court recorded: “There is nothing placed on record to suggest that the material available on record was considered by the SSRB in its proper perspective.”
The Court stated that SSRB decisions must withstand the test of reasonability and uniformity, stating: “The SSRB has the exclusive authority to decide whether the convict is entitled to premature release or not. However, such decision must withstand on the test of reasonability, rationality and should be devoid of arbitrariness and untainted with bias or whimsical.”
The Court directed that the writ petition be disposed of with a mandate for reconsideration of the petitioner’s case. It ordered: “the SSRB shall convene its meeting for the purpose of reconsideration of premature release of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of the communication of this order and it shall reconsider the matter in the light of the observation made herein supra. Needless to observe that the SSRB shall not be swayed away by its earlier decision taken in its 43rd Meeting.”
Thus, the Court allowed reconsideration of the petitioner’s premature release on the basis of subsequent enquiry reports and recommendations by district authorities, directing the State Sentence Review Board to assess the case afresh in accordance with law.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra-4, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Debasish Tripathy, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Nadu Pangi v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Number: WPCRL No. 81 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Harish Tandon, Justice Murahari Sri Raman
