Recently, the Supreme Court examined whether remission and premature release of a life convict can be denied solely on the ground that the offence committed was heinous in nature. The Court considered the requirement of reasoned administrative orders, the reformative principles underlying remission policies, and the issue of parity where a co-accused had already been granted premature release.
Brief Facts :
The case arose from a murder prosecution under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was later investigated by the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge, Dehradun and sentenced to life imprisonment, which was later affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court.
After undergoing more than twenty-two years of incarceration, the petitioner sought premature release/remission under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Although the State Government recommended his premature release after considering his conduct in prison, the Ministry of Home Affairs refused to concur with the proposal and rejected his plea, leading to the present proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner :
The counsel foer the Petitioner contended that the rejection order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs was arbitrary, cryptic, and non-speaking as it disclosed no reasons for refusing remission. It was further argued that one co-accused in the same case had already been granted premature release despite serving a lesser sentence and therefore denial of similar relief violated the principle of parity and fairness. The Petitioner also submitted that he had already undergone more than twenty-two years of imprisonment and had maintained satisfactory conduct during incarceration.
Contentions of the Respondent :
The Union of India argued that the Petitioner had played a significant role in the offence and considering the serious and heinous nature of the crime, he was not entitled to premature release. It was contended that release of a co-accused could not automatically entitle the petitioner to remission and that the MHA’s decision was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Observation of the Court :
The Supreme Court observed that the order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs rejecting the petitioner’s plea for premature release was completely unsustainable as it failed to disclose any reasons for disagreeing with the recommendation made by the State Government. The Court held that recording reasons is not a mere formality but an essential safeguard against arbitrariness and non-application of mind.
The Bench emphasised that remission cannot be denied merely because the offence committed was serious or heinous in nature. Stressing upon the reformative approach of criminal justice, the Court observed that“The gravity and heinousness of the offence stand exhausted at the stage of sentencing and the judicial determination of punishment necessarily incorporates these considerations.”
The Court further remarked that “A criminal justice system that refuses to look beyond the gravity of the offence to the offender’s transformation will betray its reformative ideal particularly at the remission stage.” Highlighting the importance of reform and rehabilitation, the Bench observed that “Justice does not permit permanent incarceration of an individual in the shadow of their worst act.”
The Court also highlighted that continued imprisonment cannot be justified on emotional considerations and observed that “In a liberal constitutional order, punishment and all its incidents, including remission, must necessarily be justified through reason and not outrage.”
Taking note of the Petitioner’s long incarceration, satisfactory jail conduct, and the premature release granted to a co-accused in the same case, the Court held that denial of similar relief without cogent reasons would violate constitutional principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness.
Decision Of the Court :
The Supreme Court held that the impugned letter issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs rejecting the Petitioner’s plea for premature release was arbitrary, cryptic, and non-speaking. The Court accordingly quashed the order and directed that the petitioner be treated as having been prematurely released/remitted. Since the Petitioner was already on interim bail, the Court clarified that his surrender would not be required.
Case Title: Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 446 of 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR; Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Adv.; Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv.; Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Adv.; Ms. Vanya Gupta, AOR; Ms. Aarushi Singh, Adv.; Mr. Aman Akhtar, Adv.; Ms. Riya Parihar, Adv.; Ms. Rekha, Adv.; Mr. Arjan Singh Mandla, Adv.
Advocates for the Respondents: Ms. Suveni Bhagat, AOR; Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR; Mr. Sunny Sachin Rawat, Adv.; Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR; Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG; Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR; Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv.; Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv.; Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv.; Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv.; Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv.; Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv.; Mr. Suraj Mishra, Adv.; Mr. Animesh Upadhyay, Adv.; Mr. Sahil Bhalotia, Adv.; Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR; Mr. Shashank Manish, AOR; Ms. Nidhi Sahay, Adv.; Ms. Pragati Singh, Adv.; Ms. Subhadra S. Chatterjee, Adv.; Ms. Debjani Sarswat, Adv.; Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.; Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv.; Mr. Anupam Kumar, Adv.; Ms. S. Kaveri, AOR.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
