As per case facts, six Writ Petitions were filed by life convicts whose premature release requests were rejected by the West Bengal Government, despite completing 20 years of imprisonment. Petitioners ...
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
LAXMAN NASKAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/02/2000
BENCH:
G.T.Nanavati, S.N.Phukan
JUDGMENT:
PHUKAN, J.
By this common judgment we propose to dispose of six
writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution as
the points involved in all the petitions are common. 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-mature release under
relevant rules, their prayer was rejected by the Government
on extraneous consideration. It is settled position of law
that 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 rule or made a scheme for early
release of such convicts then 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 life convict can be said to have acquired
is the 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 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/instructions prevalent at that time.
Sub-rules (4) & (29) of Rule 591 of the West Bengal Rules
relating to premature release of life convict run as
follows:
(4) In considering the cases of prisoners submitted
to it under sub-rules (1) and (2), the State Government
shall take into consideration (I) the circumstances in
each case, (ii) the character of the convicts crime, (iii)
his conduct in prison and (iv) the probability 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 401 of the Code of criminal
Procedure, 1898.
(29) Every case in which a convict, who has not
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 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 convicts 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.
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 premature release of the life
convicts, police report was called for on the following
points :- 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; iii) Whether the convict has lost his potentiality
in committing crime; iv) Whether there is any fruitful
purpose of confining this convict any more; v)
Socio-economic condition of the convicts 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
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 any more was also
not considered nor the socio economic conditions of the
convicts family were taken into account. Thus the orders
of the Government 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 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.
The landmark ruling in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India & Ors. addresses critical aspects of premature release of life convicts and the exercise of powers under Article 161 of the Constitution. This significant judgment, along with its detailed analysis, is readily available on CaseOn, offering invaluable insights for legal professionals and students.
The Supreme Court was faced with a series of writ petitions filed by life convicts whose requests for premature release had been rejected by the West Bengal Government. The central grievance revolved around whether these rejections were valid, particularly when the convicts believed they were entitled to early release under existing rules, and if the government’s decision-making process adhered to the legal framework governing such matters.
The Court's deliberation was guided by several key legal principles and statutory provisions:
The West Bengal Rules, specifically Sub-rules (4) and (29) of Rule 591, outline the procedure and considerations for the premature release of life convicts:
The rule further states that if the State Government is satisfied that the prisoner can be released without any danger to society, it may proceed with their release.
The Court reiterated the established legal position that while a life convict does not automatically acquire a right to premature release merely by earning remissions, the existence of government-framed rules or schemes transforms these into essential guidelines for the proper exercise of power under Article 161.
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the West Bengal Government's decision-making process in rejecting the premature release pleas.
The Court observed that all the life convicts in question had completed over 20 years of detention, including earned remissions, thus meeting a primary criterion for consideration under Rule 591(29). Despite the government having its own set of guidelines for premature release, the Court found significant deficiencies in their application.
The rejections were primarily based on police reports. However, the Court noted that these reports were largely incomplete and focused predominantly on “the chances of the petitioners committing crime again.” They failed to adequately address several other crucial points stipulated in the government's own guidelines, such as:
The Court highlighted that the government did not pay sufficient attention to the convicts' conduct records during their time in jail. Nor did it properly consider whether the convicts had genuinely lost their propensity for criminal behavior. The vital aspect of whether further confinement served any productive purpose was also overlooked.
For legal professionals grappling with the intricacies of such rulings, CaseOn.in offers concise 2-minute audio briefs that simplify the analysis of these specific judgments, making complex legal concepts easily digestible and aiding quick comprehension.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the government's orders suffered from “infirmities.” The decisions were not made in accordance with the established rules and guidelines, as the authorities failed to consider all relevant aspects comprehensively. The reliance on an incomplete police report, to the exclusion of other mandatory factors, rendered the rejections arbitrary.
The Supreme Court, finding the West Bengal Government's orders to be flawed and inconsistent with its own rules and the spirit of Article 161, took decisive action.
This judgment is a cornerstone for understanding the interplay between executive discretion and judicial review, particularly concerning prisoner rights.
Please note that all information provided in this analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance, it is essential to consult with a qualified legal professional.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....