LAXMAN NASKAR ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A                        LAXMAN NASKAR ETC. ETC.
                                          v.
                          UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                  (G.T. NAl\iAVATI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]

B
           Constitution of India-Art. 161--Premature release of life con-
    victs-Scope of power under Art. 161-!f Government has framed any rule or
    made a scheme for early release of such convicts, those rules or schemes to
    be treated as guidelines for exercising such powers.

C          These writ petitions were filed on behalf of 'life convicts' challenging
    order of the Government rejecting their prayer for premature release. All
    the 'life convicts' had completfd continued detention of 20 years including
    remission earned. Their prayer for pr1~mature release was rejected mainly
    on the ground of objections by police which had reported about the chances
    of the petitioners committing crime again. The petitioners alleged that the
D   Government acted on extraneous consideration while rejecting their
    prayers.

          Allowing the writ petitions, this Court

E         HELD : 1.1. Life sentence is nothing less than lifelong imprisonment
    and by earning remissions a life convict does not acquire a right to be
    released prematurely; but if the Government has framed any rules or
    scheme for early release of such convicts those rules or schemes will have
    to be treated as guidelines for exercising its powers under Article 161 of
    the Constitution and if according to the government policy/instructions in
F   force at the relevant time the life convict has already undergone the
    sentence for the period mentioned in tllte policy/instructions, then the only
    right which a life convict can be said to have acquired is right to have his
    case put up by the prison authorities in time before the authorities
    concerned for considering exercise of power under Article 161 of Constitu-
G   tion. When an authority is called upon to exercise its powers under Article
    161 of the Constitution that will have to be done consistently with the legal
    position and the Government policy/instruction prevalent at that time.
    (797-G-H; 798-A-B]

          1.2. In the instant case all the 'life cm1victs' had completed con-
H   tinned detention of 20 years including remission earned. The prayer of 'life
                                          796
                    LAXAMAN NASKAR v. l:.O.I. [PHUKAN, J.]                   797

...   convicts' for prematnre release was rejected mainly on the ground of A
      objecti1111s by police. The police had only reported about the chances of the
      petitioners committing crime again. The Government did not consider the
      prayer for premature release as per the rules. The Government did not
      pay sufficient attention to the conduct-record of the petitioners while
      in jail nor did it consider whether they had lost their potentiality in
      committing crime. The relevant aspect, namely, that there is no fruitful
                                                                                    B
      purpose in confining them any more was also not considered nor the
      the socio-economic conditions of the convict's family were taken into
      account. Thus the orders of the Government suffer from infirmities and
      are liable to be quashed. Therefore, the authorities are directed to
      re-consider the cases for premature release of all "life convicts' who had    c
      approached this Court. [799-C-F]

           CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (CRL.)
      No. 64 of 1999. Etc. Etc.

            Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.                          D
            Balwant Singh Malik, Tapash Chandra Ray, A.S. Nambiar, V.C.
      Mahajan, Santosh Singh, Ms. Asha G. Nair, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Binu
      Tamta, A.K. Sharma, Ms. Sushma Suri, Satish Vig., T.C. Sharma, Somvir
      Singh Deswal, Ms. Kusum Singh, Lakhan Singh Chauhan, Mrs. Santosh
      Singh and S.K. Dwivcdi for the appearing parties.                             E

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            PHUKAN, J. By this common judgment we propose to dispose of six
      writ pditions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution as the points
      involved in all the petitions are common.                                     F
'-·


            Writ petitions have been filed on behalf of "life convicts" as their
      prayer for pre-mature release was rejected by the Government of West
 '    Bengal. The common grievance is that though they are entitled for pre-ma-
      ture release under relevant rules, their prayer was rejected by the Govern-
                                                                                    G
      ment on extrant:ous consideration.

             It is settled position of law that life sentence is nothing less than
      lifelong imprisonment and by <;arning remissions a life convict does not
      acquire a right to be released prematurdy; but if the Government has
      framed any rule or made a scheme for early release of such convicts then H
    798                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2(){){)] 1 S.C.R.

A   those rules or schemes will have to be treated as guidelines for exercising
    its power under Article 161 of the Constitution and if according to the
    Government policy/instructions in force at the relevant time the life convict
    has already undergone the sentence for the period mentioned in the policy
    instructions, then the only right which a lift: convict can be said to have
    acquired is the right to have his case put up by the prison authorities in
B   time before the authorities concerned for considering exercise of power
    under Article 161 of the Constitution. When an authority is called upon to
    exercise its powers under Article 161 of the Constitution that will have to
    be done consistently with the legal position and the Government policy/in-
    structions prevalent at that time.

c         Sub-rules (4) & (29) or Rule 591 of the West Bengal Rules relating
    to premature release of lift: convict run as follows :

            (4) - In considering the cases of prisoners submitted to it under
            sub-rule~ (1) and (2), the State Government shall take into con-
            sideration - (i) the circmnstances in each case (ii) the character of
D
            the convict's crime, (iii) his conduct in prison and (iv) the prob-
            ability of his reverting to criminal habits or instigating others to
            commit crime. If the State Government is satisfied that the prisoner
            can be released without any danger to the society or to the public
            it may take steps for issue of orders for his release under section
E           401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898."

            "(29) - Every case in which a convict, who has not received the
            benefit of any of the foregoing rules, is about to complete a period
            of 20 years of continued detention including remission earned, if
            any, shall be submitted three months before such completion by
F           the Superintendent of the Jail in which the convict is for the time
            being detained, through the Inspector- General, for orders of the
            State Government. If the convict's jail records during the last three
            years of his detentions are found to be satisfactory the State
            Government may remit the remainder of his sentence."
G
          All the "life convicts" before us have completed continued detention
    of 20 years including remission earned.

           From the counter filed by the State, we find that the Government has
    also framed guidelines for this purpose. To consider the prayer for prema-
H   ture release of the "life convicts", police report was called for on the
                LAXAMAN NASKAR v. U.O.I. [PHUKAN, J.]                      799

following points :                                                                A
      (i) Whether the offence is an individual act of crime without affecting
the society at large;

      (ii) Whether there is any chance of future recurrence of committing
crime;                                                                            B
       (iii) Whether the convict has lost his potentiality in committing crime;

     (iv) Whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining this convict
any more;
                                                                                  c
       (v) Socio-economic condition of the convict's family.

      Though the police report did not cover all the above points, the
prayer of "life convicts" for premature release was rejected mainly on the
ground of objections by police. The police had only reported about the
chances of the petitioners committing crime again. It becomes apparent            D
from the record that the Government did not consider the prayer for
premature release as per the rules. The Government did not pay sufficient
attention to the conduct-record of the petitioners while in jail nor did it
consider whether they had lost their potentiality in committing crime. The
relevant aspect, namely, that there is no fruitful purpose in confining them      E
any more was also not considered nor the socio economic conditions of the
convict's family were taken into account. Thus the orders of the Govern-
ment suffer from infirmities and are liable to be quashed.

        In the result, we set aside all the orders of the State Government and
direct the authorities to re-consider the cases for premature release of all      F
''life convicts' who have approached us by filing present Writ Petitions as
per relevant rules/guidelines within a period of one month from the receipt
of this order.

       The Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.
                                                                                  G
R.A.                                                        Petitions allowed.