LexLAXMAN NASKAR ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
LAXMAN NASKAR ETC. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(G.T. NAl\iAVATI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India-Art. 161--Premature release of life con-
victs-Scope of power under Art. 161-!f Government has framed any rule or
made a scheme for early release of such convicts, those rules or schemes to
be treated as guidelines for exercising such powers.
C
These writ petitions were filed on behalf of 'life convicts' challenging
order of the Government rejecting their prayer for premature release. All
the 'life convicts' had completfd continued detention of 20 years including
remission earned. Their prayer for pr1~mature release was rejected mainly
on the ground of objections by police which had reported about the chances
of the petitioners committing crime again. The petitioners alleged that the
D Government acted on extraneous consideration while rejecting their
prayers.
Allowing the writ petitions, this Court
E
HELD : 1.1. 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 rules or
scheme for early release of such convicts those rules or schemes will have
to be treated as guidelines for exercising its powers under Article 161 of
the Constitution and if according to the government policy/instructions in
F force at the relevant time the life convict has already undergone the
sentence for the period mentioned in tllte policy/instructions, then the only
right which a life convict can be said to have acquired is 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 Constitu-
G tion. 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/instruction prevalent at that time.
(797-G-H; 798-A-B]
1.2. In the instant case all the 'life cm1victs' had completed con-
H tinned detention of 20 years including remission earned. The prayer of 'life
796
LAXAMAN NASKAR v. l:.O.I. [PHUKAN, J.]
797
...
convicts' for prematnre release was rejected mainly on the ground of A
objecti1111s by police. The police had only reported about the chances of the
petitioners committing crime again. 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
B
committing crime. The relevant aspect, namely, that there is no fruitful
purpose in confining them any more was also not considered nor the
the socio-economic conditions of the convict's family were taken into
account. Thus the orders of the Government suffer from infirmities and
are liable to be quashed. Therefore, the authorities are directed to
re-consider the cases for premature release of all "life convicts' who had c
approached this Court. [799-C-F]
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (CRL.)
No. 64 of 1999. Etc. Etc.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
D
Balwant Singh Malik, Tapash Chandra Ray, A.S. Nambiar, V.C.
Mahajan, Santosh Singh, Ms. Asha G. Nair, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Binu
Tamta, A.K. Sharma, Ms. Sushma Suri, Satish Vig., T.C. Sharma, Somvir
Singh Deswal, Ms. Kusum Singh, Lakhan Singh Chauhan, Mrs. Santosh E
Singh and S.K. Dwivcdi for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PHUKAN, J. By this common judgment we propose to dispose of six
writ pditions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution as the points F
'-·
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-ma-
ture release under relevant rules, their prayer was rejected by the Govern-
G
ment on extrant:ous consideration.
It is settled position of law that life sentence is nothing less than
lifelong imprisonment and by <;arning remissions a life convict does not
acquire a right to be released prematurdy; but if the Government has
framed any rule or made a scheme for early release of such convicts then H
798
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2(){){)] 1 S.C.R.
A those rules Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.