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.