As per case facts, the petitioner, a life convict for murder, had his conviction upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court. His prayer for premature release was recommended by ... the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB). However, the State Judicial Secretary rejected this recommendation based on a negative opinion from the Chief Judge of the City Sessions Court. The petitioner challenged this rejection via a Writ Petition, arguing the Chief Judge's competence and the validity of the opinion. The question arose whether the Chief Judge could render an opinion under Section 432(2) of the Code when the original judge was unavailable, if that opinion met statutory requirements, and if the Secretary's rejection was sustainable, especially given a prior court order. Finally, the Court found the Chief Judge competent but deemed his opinion inadequate and the Secretary's decision flawed for misinterpreting its binding nature. The impugned order was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Chief Judge for a fresh, reasoned opinion, which the State authority must then reconsider, treating it as valuable advice, not binding.