As per case facts, the Petitioner, convicted for murder and other offenses in 2004 and initially sentenced to death, had her sentence commuted to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court ... in 2014 due to delay in her mercy petition. She applied for premature release under the 2002 policy, having served substantial actual and total sentences. Her application was rejected by the Respondent No.1's order passed in 2023, citing unsatisfactory conduct (numerous jail offenses and other criminal cases) and the heinous nature of her crime, further directing her to remain in jail until her last breath. The Petitioner challenged this order, contending it violated the applicable policy by considering jail offenses outside the five-year assessment period, commenting on the Supreme Court's commutation basis, re-discussing trial evidence, and exceeding jurisdiction by imposing a lifetime sentence. The question arose whether the competent authority, while assessing premature release, overstepped its bounds by re-evaluating judicial decisions and evidence, and by considering conduct beyond the policy's specified timeframe. Finally, the High Court found the impugned order perverse and illegal. It ruled that the committee exceeded its jurisdiction by commenting on the Supreme Court's decision, re-examining trial evidence, and evaluating jail offenses from periods beyond the policy's five-year scope. The High Court quashed the order, directing the respondents to reconsider the premature release strictly per the 2002 policy and the court's observations within two months, and ordered interim bail for the petitioner.