Serious Threat To Society & Nation : Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Life Convicts’ Pleas For Premature Release In 1993 Serial Train Blasts Case
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Rajasthan Division Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Bhuwan Goyal dismissed the writ petitions filed by four life convicts in the December 1993 serial train bomb blast cases, who sought premature release and challenged the rejection of their representations by the authorities, including the Union Home Ministry. Finding that the competent authorities had acted within the applicable framework, including an exclusion for TADA convicts, the Bench declined to set aside the orders denying release. The Court observed that, in judicial review, it cannot act as an appellate authority or re-appreciate the factual record to draw a different conclusion, and interference is limited to decisions shown to suffer from arbitrariness, mala fides, or reliance on irrelevant considerations.
The writ petitions were filed by life convicts seeking premature release from imprisonment. The petitioners had been convicted for offences under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, arising out of the serial train bomb blast incidents of December 1993. Following a full criminal trial, they were sentenced to life imprisonment by the designated court in 2004, and their convictions and sentences were later affirmed by the Supreme Court.
After completing more than twenty years of incarceration, the petitioners submitted representations seeking premature release. These representations were rejected by orders issued in December 2022 and March 2024 by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The petitioners challenged these orders before the High Court, contending that their long incarceration entitled them to consideration for premature release. They relied on a communication of the Ministry of Home Affairs indicating that terrorist offences were treated as a separate category with a minimum incarceration period of twenty years before consideration of commutation.
The petitioners further contended that their cases ought to have been considered under the remission policy prevailing at the time of their conviction rather than under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006. The respondents opposed the petitions, asserting that the statutory rules expressly barred premature release of prisoners convicted under TADA and that the petitioners’ cases had been duly examined in accordance with law.
The Division Bench recorded that the writ petitioners stood convicted for serious terrorist offences and were serving life sentences affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court noted that “from the record, it is apparent that writ petitioners were accused in serial train Bomb Blast cases of December, 1993 and after full dressed criminal trial, have been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment” under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.
The Court observed that the issue of commutation and premature release had already undergone scrutiny at the level of the Union Government. Referring to the earlier consideration, the Bench recorded that “after having gone into the merits of case of each petitioner, Ministry of Home Affairs did not find it proper to commute sentences of the convicts under TADA, irrespective of the period of their incarceration.”
While examining the impugned orders rejecting the representations, the Court noted that the authorities had taken into account the gravity of the offences and national security concerns. The Bench recorded the specific reasoning reflected in the orders, stating that “terrorist activity is heinous crime and if their premature release is considered, it will be prejudicial to public peace and serious threat to the society and nation, it will also send a wrong message to the criminals.”
The Court then examined the statutory bar under the applicable prison rules and reproduced the relevant provisions. It noted that Rule 9(5) of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 provides that “the Advisory Board shall not consider the cases of… prisoners convicted under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.” The Bench further recorded that an identical prohibition existed under the earlier 1958 Rules.
Addressing the argument that the petitioners’ cases ought to have been considered under the policy prevailing at the time of conviction, the Court observed that “the similar rule, as available in the Rules of 2006, was incorporated in the erstwhile Rule of 1958,” and therefore the contention lost significance.
On the scope of judicial review, the Court stated that “this Court neither can sit as Appellate Authority nor is expected to re-appreciate the entire factual matrix to draw a different conclusion/inference than taken by the competent authorities.” It further recorded that “unless and until, it is found that the decision impugned has been taken by the authorities without application of mind… or is vitiated due to malafides or patent arbitrariness, same does not warrant any interference by the High Court.”
The Bench concluded that “we find that the impugned orders have been passed by the authorities having competence and jurisdiction… after taking into consideration all the relevant factors and within parameters of law.”
In relation to the impugned orders the Court observed: “the impugned orders do not warrant any interference by the High Court in exercise of powers of Judicial review and writ petitions being misconceived, deserve to be dismissed.”
Recording the outcome of prior executive consideration, the Bench noted: “after having gone into the merits of case of each petitioner, Ministry of Home Affairs did not find it proper to commute sentences of the convicts under TADA, irrespective of the period of their incarceration.”
Reciting the statutory embargo relied upon, the Court reproduced the rule: “the Advisory Board shall not consider the cases of following types of prisoners: - .... Prisoners convicted under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (Central Act 28 of 1987).”
“As a final result, writ petitions are hereby dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Deeksha Dwivedi, Advocate; Mr. Tek Chand Swami, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Bharat Vyas, Senior Counsel, with Mr. Devesh Yadav, Advocate; Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General
Case Title: Asfaq Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JP:50419-DB
Case Number: D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 666/2023 (with connected matters)
Bench: Justice Sudesh Bansal, Justice Bhuwan Goyal
