JOSEPH versus THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 21-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 505 : 2023 INSC 843
505
CASE DETAILS
JOSEPH
v.
THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s). 520 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the writ petition fi led by the 
petitioner seeking appropriate direction to the State Government, to 
prematurely release him, having been in custody-actual imprisonment for 
over  26 years, and served a sentence of over 35 years including over 8 
years of remission earned, for off ence punishable u/ss. 302 and 392 IPC, 
should be allowed.
Premature release – Convict served over 26 years in actual 
imprisonment and served 35 years of sentence including 8 years of 
remission earned for off ences punishable u/ss. 302 and 392 – Case 
rejected for premature release thrice by the State Government – Writ 
petition seeking direction to the State Government to prematurely 
release him: 
Held: Infl exible guidelines can result in the real danger of overlooking 
the reformative potential of each individual convict – Grouping types of 
convicts, based on the off ences they were found to have committed, as a 
starting point, may be justifi ed, however, prison laws in India read with Arts. 
72 and 161 encapsulate a strong underlying reformative purpose – Insistence 
of guidelines, and denial to consider the real impact of prison good behavior, 
and other relevant factors results in violation of Art. 14 – Excluding the 
relief of premature release to prisoners who have served extremely long 
periods of incarceration, not only crushes their spirit, and instils despair, but 
signifi es society’s resolve to be harsh and unforgiving – Idea of rewarding, 
a prisoner for good conduct is entirely negated – r. 376 of the 2014 Rules 
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
prescribes that prisoners shall be granted remission for keeping peace 
and good behaviour in jail – Redirecting the petitioner who has already 
undergone over 26 years of incarceration and over 35 years of punishment 
with remission, to undergo, again, consideration before the Advisory Board, 
and thereafter, State Government for premature release, would be cruel – 
Petitioner has earned over 8 years of remission, thus demonstrates good 
conduct in jail – Discussions of the Jail Advisory Board are also positive 
and shows that he is a reformed inmate –  Thus, in the interest of justice, 
issuance of direction to release the petitioner – Kerala Prison Rules, 1958 
– Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 – rr 
462 to 468. [Paras 33-35]
Remission – Grant of remission – Scope of:
Held: Blanket exclusion of certain off ences, from the scope of grant of 
remission, by way of an executive policy, is arbitrary and against the ideals 
of reformation that run through the criminal justice system – Penological 
goal is of reformation and rehabilitation rather than retribution – Impact 
of applying such an executive instruction/guideline would be that any 
progress made by a long-term convict would leave them feeling hopeless, 
and condemned to an indefi nite period of incarceration. [Para 28]
Remission – Remission policy – Application of: 
Held: Remission policy prevailing on the date of conviction, is to be 
applied in a given case, and if a more liberal policy exists on the day of 
consideration, then the latter would apply. [Para 19]
Administrative law – Discretion conferred widely by plenary 
statute or statutory rules: 
Held: Cannot be lightly fettered. [Para 29]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State of Haryana v. Jagdish [2010] 3 SCR 716; Maru Ram, v. Union of 
India [1981] 1 SCR 1196; General Offi  cer Commanding-in-Chief v. Subhash 
Chandra Yadav [1988] 3 SCR 62; State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh
[2007] 11 SCR 932; State v. H. Nilofer Nisha (2020) 14 SCC 161:[2020] 1 
SCR 456; Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India [2010] 3 SCR 1059; Union 
507
of India v. V. Sriharan [2015] 14 SCR 613; Swamy Shraddananda (2) @ 
Mural Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka [2008] 11 SCR 93; State of 
Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh [1976] Supp. 1 SCR 552; Rajan v. The Home 
Secretary, Home Department of Tamil Nadu [2019] 6 SCR 1035; State of 
Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2021) 9 SCC 292; Rajo v. State of Bihar Judgment 
dated 25.08.2023 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 252/2023; State of Haryana v. 
Mohinder Singh [2000] 1 SCR 698; Sangeet v. State of Haryana [2012] 13 
SCR 85; Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh [2022] 4 SCR 1103; U.P. 
State

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.