(b) State of Karnataka may be directed
to conduct the exercise afresh for all prisoners
(except for the ones considered in the instant
round) who will be eligible in July 2022."
12 The Standing Counsel shall immediately forward
a copy of the present order to the Director
General of Prisons.
NC: 2025:KHC:12736
13 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in the case of KARUNA SHANKAR
(supra) observes that the delay in release of the prisoners
on their merit i.e., of those life convicts, depicts a sorry
state of affairs of the State of Uttar Pradesh and directs
that the Committee should meet and ensure premature
release of the life convicts, within a month from the date
of the order. If both the orders passed by the Apex Court
are read in tandem, what would unmistakably emerge is
that, the Committee though would not meet 8 times a
year, but should atleast meet 6 times a year, which would
mean once in two months, as the life convicts are
statutorily entitled for consideration of their premature
release in terms of the guidelines notified by the State.
9. What are the guidelines to be applied for such
release is also considered by the Apex Court in the case of
SHARAFAT ALI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH3,
wherein, the Apex Court has held as follows:
"6. The first principle which must be noted, while
adjudicating upon the petition is that the application for
premature release has to be considered on the basis of
the policy as it stood on the date when the petitioner
was convicted of the offence. This principle finds
reiteration in several judgments of this Court such
as State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216. The
most recent of them is the decision in State of
Haryana v. Raj Kumar @ Bitu (2021) 9 SCC 292.
7. The order which has been passed by the State
government in the present case is bereft of an
application of mind to relevant circumstances bearing on
whether the petitioner should be released prematurely.
The order contains general observations to the effect
that the release may result in resentment on the side of
the victim, but this is a general consideration which
would govern virtually all criminal offences where a
person stands convicted of a serious offence, as in the
present case under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
the IPC. The order does not contain any reference
2022 SCC Online SC 193
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12736
whatsoever to whether the petitioner possesses any
prior criminal history, save and except for the present
case. Similarly, the order is completely silent on the
conduct and behavior of the petitioner in jail and after he
was convicted of the offence. The relevant considerations
bearing upon whether the release of the petitioner would
pose a danger to society have not been adverted to.
There has to be a considered application of mind to the
facts of each case.
8. In the circumstances, the order which has been
passed rejecting the application of the petitioner for
premature release suffers from a complete and patent
non-application of mind.
9. For the above reasons, we allow the petition
by setting aside the impugned order dated 30 July
2021 passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.
We direct that the application of the petitioner for
premature release shall be reconsidered on the
basis of the policy as it stood on 17th January
2005, when the petitioner was convicted of an
offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
the IPC. The application shall be considered afresh
without the petitioner being required to file any
fresh application for premature release. An order
shall be passed after taking into account all
relevant facts and circumstances including those
which have been adverted to above. This exercise
shall be completed within a period of two months
from the date of this order."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that the guidelines policy that
prevailed at the time when the accused gets convicted is
what would become applicable for consideration of the
application for premature release. Therefore, there can
be no ambiguity for application of guidelines for
consideration of the application for premature release of
the life convicts, on their merit, for such release. The
Apex Court considering the judgment in the case of
SHARAFAT ALI (supra) and all other judgments on the
issue, in the case of RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA V.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12736
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER4, has held
as follows:
"18. We direct that:
(i) All cases for premature release of
convicts undergoing imprisonment for
life in the present batch of cases shall
be considered in terms of the policy
dated 1 August 2018, as amended,
subject to the observations which are
contained herein. The restriction that
a life convict is not eligible for
premature release until attaining the
age of sixty years, which was
introduced by the policy of 28 July
2021, stands deleted by the
amendment dated 27 May 2022.
Hence, no case for premature release
shall be rejected on that ground;
ii) In the event that any convict is entitled to
more liberal benefits by any of the
amendments which have been brought
about subsequent to the policy dated 1
August 2018, the case for the grant of
premature release would be considered by
granting benefit in terms of more liberal
amended para/clause of the policies. All
decisions of premature release of
convicts, including those, beyond the
present batch of cases would be entitled
to such a beneficial reading of the policy;
iii) In terms of para 4 of the policy dated 1
August 2018, no application is required to
be submitted by a convict undergoing life
imprisonment for premature release.
Further, through amendment dated 28
July 2021, para 3(i), which included
convicts undergoing life imprisonment
who have not filed application for pre-
mature release in the prohibited category,
has specifically been deleted.
Accordingly, all cases of convicts
undergoing life sentence in the State of
Uttar Pradesh who are eligible for being
2022 SCC Online SC 1201
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12736
considered for premature release in terms
of the policy, including but not confined to
the five hundred and twelve prisoners
involved in the present batch of cases,
shall be considered in terms of the
procedure for premature release
stipulated in the policy;
iv) The District Legal Services Authorities in
the State of Uttar Pradesh shall take
necessary steps in coordination with the
jail authorities to ensure that all eligible
cases of prisoners who would be entitled
to premature release in terms of the
applicable policies, as noticed above,
would be duly considered and no prisoner,
who is otherwise eligible for being
considered, shall be excluded from
consideration.
v) These steps to be taken by DLSAs would,
include but not be limited to, Secretaries
of DLSAs seeking status report on all
prisoners undergoing life imprisonment in
the prisons falling under their jurisdiction
in terms of the format of table prepared in
Annexure - A covering the details
mentioned in para 13 of this judgment
and ensuring its submission by relevant
authorities within eight weeks of this
order as well as on an annual basis.
Further, DLSAs would utilize this status
report to monitor and engage with
respective authorities to ensure the
implementation of our directions to
ensure premature release in terms of
applicable policies in all eligible cases of
convicts undergoing life sentence on a
continuous basis;
vi) The applications for premature
release shall be considered
expeditiously. Those cases which
have already been processed and in
respect of which reports have been
submitted shall be concluded and
final decisions intimated to the
convict no later than within a period
of one month from the date of this
order. Cases of eligible life convicts
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12736
who are (i) above the age of seventy
years; or (ii) suffering from terminal
ailments shall be taken up on priority
and would be disposed of within a
period of two months. The Uttar
Pradesh State legal Services
Authority shall, within a period of two
weeks, lay down the priorities
according to which all other pending
cases shall be disposed of. All other
cases shall, in any event, be disposed
of within a period of four months
from the date of this order; and
vii) Where any convict undergoing life
imprisonment has already been released
on bail by the orders of this Court, the
order granting interim bail shall continue
to remain in operation until the disposal of
the application for premature release."
(Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, the Apex Court in all the aforesaid orders, have
clearly directed the respective State Governments and
Director General of Prisons of those States to take
necessary steps to ensure that the applications for
premature release of life convicts to be considered and
disposed, without any loss of time. The Apex Court has
also admonished that it would be constrained to take
recourse to coercive action, if recalcitrance is displayed.
10. On a coalesce of what the Apex Court has
considered in all the afore-quoted judgments, what would
unmistakably emerge is that cases of life convicts who are
entitled for consideration of their premature release,
should be considered without any loss of time. In the
case at hand, the Committee has not met for the last 8
months which has resulted in plethora of cases being filed
before this Court seeking a mandamus only to place those
applications before the committee in the ensuing meeting.
When the meeting would ensue the State itself is not
aware, as no concrete date is being divulged for the
committee to meet. In the afore-said circumstances, I
deem it appropriate to direct the State Government to
henceforth direct the 2nd respondent/Committee to meet
at least 6 times a year - once in two months, so that
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12736
those application/s are considered at the right time on
their individual merit and cases being filed only to place
the application/s before the committee would be obviated.
Till such time that the application of the petitioner would
merit consideration before the committee, he would be
entitled to be released on parole, in accordance with law,
for a period that the Authorities of the jail would prescribe
or till such time, the committee would meet and consider
the case of the petitioner.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is disposed.
(ii) A mandamus issues to the 1st
respondent-State to direct the Committee to
meet on or before 10th April, 2023 and
consider the case of the petitioner and the
like, whose cases are placed before it, for
consideration of their cases for
remission/premature release.
(iii) It is made clear that the State
Government shall henceforth, direct the 2nd
respondent/Committee to meet once in two
months, in the light of the directions issued
by the Apex Court in the cases referred to in
the course of the order.
(iv) The directions shall be adhered to from
st
the 1 of April, 2023.
(v) The petitioner shall be considered for
his release on general parole, in accordance
with law, till the committee meets and
considers his application for his premature
release.
(vi) The Registry is directed to
communicate the order to the Additional
Chief Secretary, Department of Home Affairs,
Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru for its
compliance."
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12736
In another case, a coordinate bench of this Court in
W.P.Nos.20297/2024 and connected matter, disposed on
19.08.2024, has held as follows:
"3. The case of the petitioners for premature
release has been recommended by the Advisory
Committee and is currently pending consideration before
the Life Convicts Release Committee. The petitioner in WP
No. 20297/2024 was granted general parole and has duly
surrendered on 01.08.2024.
4. In the identical circumstances, the Apex
court in the case of RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA Vs.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR in
W.P.(Criminal)No.336/2019 has directed as follows:
"(i) All cases for premature release of convicts
undergoing imprisonment for life in the present batch of
cases shall be considered in terms of the policy dated 1
August 2018, as amended, subject to the observations
which are contained herein. The restriction that a life
convict is not eligible for premature release until
attaining the age of sixty years, which was introduced by
the policy of 28 July 2021, stands deleted by the
amendment dated 27 May 2022. Hence, no case for
premature release shall be rejected on that ground;
(ii) In the event that any convict is entitled to more
liberal benefits by any of the amendments which have
been brought about subsequent to the policy dated 1
August 2018, the case for the grant of premature release
would be considered by granting benefit in terms of
more liberal amended para/clause of the policies. All
decisions of premature release of convicts, including
those, beyond the present batch of cases would be
entitled to such a beneficial reading of the policy;
(iii) In terms of para 4 of the policy dated 1 August
2018, no application is required to be submitted by a
convict undergoing life imprisonment for premature
release. Further, through amendment dated 28 July
2021, para 3(i), which included convicts undergoing life
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12736
imprisonment who have not filed application for pre-
mature release in the prohibited category, has
specifically been deleted. Accordingly, all cases of
convicts undergoing life sentence in the State of Uttar
Pradesh who are eligible for being considered for
premature release in terms of the policy, including but
not confined to the five hundred and twelve prisoners
involved in the present batch of cases, shall be
considered in terms of the procedure for premature
release stipulated in the policy;
(iv) The District Legal Services Authorities in the State of
Uttar Pradesh shall take necessary steps in coordination
with the jail authorities to ensure that all eligible cases of
prisoners who would be entitled to premature release in
terms of the applicable policies, as noticed above, would
be duly considered and no prisoner, who is otherwise
eligible for being considered, shall be excluded from
consideration.
(v) These steps to be taken by DLSAs would, include but
not be limited to, Secretaries of DLSAs seeking status
report on all prisoners undergoing life imprisonment in
the prisons falling under their jurisdiction in terms of the
format of table prepared in Annexure-A covering the
details mentioned in para 13 of this judgment and
ensuring its submission by relevant authorities within
eight weeks of this order as well as on an annual basis.
Further, DLSAs would utilize this status report to monitor
and engage with respective authorities to ensure the
implementation of our directions to ensure premature
release in terms of applicable policies in all eligible cases
of convicts undergoing life sentence on a continuous
basis;
(vi) The applications for premature release shall be
considered expeditiously. Those cases which have
already been processed and in respect of which reports
have been submitted shall be concluded and final
decisions intimated to the convict no later than within a
period of one month from the date of this order. Cases of
eligible life convicts who are (i) above the age of seventy
years; or (ii) suffering from terminal ailments shall be
taken up on priority and would be disposed of within a
period of two months. The Uttar Pradesh State Legal
Services Authority shall, within a period of two weeks,
lay down the priorities according to which all other
pending cases shall be disposed of. All other cases shall,
in any event, be disposed of within a period of four
months from the date of this order; and
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12736
(vii) Where any convict undergoing life imprisonment has
already been released on bail by the orders of this Court,
the order granting interim bail shall continue to remain
in operation until the disposal of the application for
premature release."
5. In the identical circumstances the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court by following the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of RASHIDUL JAFAR (SUPRA)
has issued a direction to respondent No.1-State therein
directing as follows:
"10. On a coalesce of what the Apex Court has
considered in all the afore-quoted judgments, what
would unmistakably emerge is that cases of life convicts
who are entitled for consideration of their premature
release, should be considered without any loss of time.
In the case at hand, the Committee has not met for the
last 8 months which has resulted in plethora of cases
being filed before this Court seeking a mandamus only to
place those applications before the committee in the
ensuing meeting. When the meeting would ensue the
State itself is not aware, as no concrete date is being
divulged for the committee to meet. In the afore-said
circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the State
Government to henceforth direct the 2nd
respondent/Committee to meet at least 6 times a year -
once in two months, so that those application/s are
considered at the right time on their individual merit and
cases being filed only to place the application/s before
the committee would be obviated. Till such time that the
application of the petitioner would merit consideration
before the committee, he would be entitled to be
released on parole, in accordance with law, for a period
that the Authorities of the jail would prescribe or till such
time, the committee would meet and consider the case
of the petitioner.
6. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is disposed.
(ii) A mandamus issues to the 1st respondent-
State to direct the Committee to meet on or before 10th
April, 2023 and consider the case of the petitioner and
the like, whose cases are placed before it, for
consideration of their cases for remission/premature
release.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12736
(iii) It is made clear that the State Government
shall henceforth, direct the 2nd respondent/Committee to
meet once in two months, in the light of the directions
issued by the Apex Court in the cases referred to in the
course of the order.
(iv) The directions shall be adhered to from the 1st
of April, 2023.
(v) The petitioner shall be considered for his
release on general parole, in accordance with law, till the
committee meets and considers his application for his
premature release.
(vi) The Registry is directed to communicate the
order to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Home Affairs, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru for
its compliance."
7. The respondent therein considered the
petitioner therein for release on general parole in
accordance with law, till the committee considers the
application for premature release.
8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its
order dated 17.04.2023 clarified that the petitioner
therein shall be released on parole forthwith, till his case
is considered by the Committee.
9. The petitioner has established a prima facie
case for granting parole. Accordingly, I pass the
following:
ORDER
a. The Writ Petitions are allowed.
b. Respondents are hereby directed to release
the petitioner/convict in W.P.Nos.20297/2024 and
20291/2024 on parole for a period of 90 days from the
date of his release, subject to petitioners undertaking not
to involve in unlawful activities during the parole.
c. Respondents shall stipulate strict conditions
as are usually stipulated to ensure their return o to the
prison and the convicts shall not commit any other
offence during the period of parole.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12736
d. The Registry is directed to communicate this
order to respondents, by way of electronic mail, forthwith.
e. The petitioners are at liberty to seek
extension of parole."
In the light of the issue standing answered in the afore-
quoted judgments and also the admitted fact that the
petitioner's name is recommended for premature release, I
deem it appropriate to grant parole for a period of 60 days.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) Mandamus issues to respondent No.4 to release
the petitioner (Convict - CTP No.8463) on
general parole for a period of 60 days, in terms
of the observation made in the course of the
order, which commences from the forenoon of
29.03.2025 and ends in the evening of
27.05.2025.
(iii) The convict (CTP No.8463) - shall mark his
attendance in the jurisdictional police station,
weekly once throughout the period of his general
parole and it would be the responsibility of the
jurisdictional police to take him to gaol, in the
event, the convict (CTP No.8463) would evade
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12736
going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the
period of general parole.
(iv) Respondent No.4 shall stipulate strict conditions
as are usually stipulated, to ensure return of the
convict to the gaol and that he shall not commit
any other offence during the period of general
parole.
(v) Registry is directed to communicate this order to
respondent No.4, by way of electronic mail,
forthwith.
(vi) The Committee is thus directed to consider those
cases which are pending before it for premature
release without brooking any further delay, as it
has generated huge number of litigations before
this Court.
(vii) The petitioner is reserved liberty to seek
extension of general parole in the event, the
Committee could not decide on the
recommendation for premature release of the
petitioner.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
JY
CT: BHK
