Recently, the Madras High Court dealt with a writ petition challenging the rejection of a premature release application for a life convict, Velumani, under the government’s premature release policy. The Court set aside the impugned Government Order, directing the State to reconsider the application and provide clear, consistent reasons.
HC Bench observed that mere rejection on the grounds of the heinous nature of the crime without proper reasoning and uniformity in similar cases was insufficient, stressing the importance of fairness and reformation in the criminal justice system.
Brief Fact :
The convict, Velumani was serving a life sentence for a heinous crime involving a woman who refused to enter into the flesh trade the convict submitted an application for premature release under the State Government’s policy. The State Committee reviewed the application and recommended the release of the convict based on compliance with the required conditions. However, the Government rejected the application, citing the seriousness of the crime and the fact that Velumani had not completed 14 years in prison. The petitioner contended that this blanket rejection did not align with the directives of the Supreme Court and was arbitrary.
Contention of Petitioner:
The Counsel for the petitioner argued that the reasons provided for rejecting the application were insufficient. The counsel contended that the crime’s heinous nature alone was not enough to reject the application, as the convict had already served more than ten years, meeting the conditions outlined in the premature release policy. Moreover, the decision ignored the progress made by the convict in terms of reformation, which is a key consideration in the criminal justice system.
Contention of Respondent:
The counsel for the respondent defended the Government’s decision, stating that the Government has the discretion to reject applications for premature release, especially in cases involving heinous crimes. The counsel referred to the relevant Government Order (G.O. Ms. No. 488) to argue that the decision was in line with the policy provisions, which allow discretion in such cases.
Observation of the Court:
High Court Bench while exercising its powers of judicial review under Article 226, observed that while the Government has the discretion to make decisions regarding premature release, this discretion must be exercised in a fair and consistent manner. The court emphasized that “the reasons are lifeline for the decision taken administratively”, and that the government must provide clear and adequate reasoning when rejecting such applications.
Bench further noted that the rejection of Velumani’s application on the grounds that the offence was heinous and that he had not completed 14 years was not sufficient.
The Court added that while the nature of the crime is certainly a relevant factor, the Government must also consider the convict’s progress towards reformation and the fact that he had served more than ten years, as stipulated under the policy. The court stated, “Mere rejection on the ground that the offence is heinous would be insufficient”.
The Court also observed that the Government’s decision should be consistent with how similar cases are treated. It noted that “while assigning reasons, if any similar cases are noticed, then the Government has to look into the nature of those offences and its seriousness or heinousness and thereafter take a decision”. Thus, the rejection of Velumani’s application appeared arbitrary, as it did not consider comparable cases or the convict’s rehabilitation.
The Decision of the Court:
The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Government for reconsideration. The Government was directed to review the application and provide a reasoned decision, consistent with the premature release policy and in light of similar cases, within eight weeks. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim application was closed without costs.
Case Title: Mr.Mani @ Velumani v. The State & Ors.
Citation: W.P.No.13235 of 2024
Coram: Justice S.M. Subramaniam, Justice V. Sivagnanam
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. M.Mohamed Saifulla
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. E.Raj Thilak (APP)
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :