Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a criminal writ petition taken up by the Court regarding the pendency of 412 cases for premature release, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., while heavily condemning the apathy of the State, directed the Chief Judicial Magistrates (‘CJMs’) concerned to release such prisoners on interim bail within two weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Background
In 2019, a Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court visited the Central Jail, Women Jail, and Borstal Jail, Ludhiana. During the said visit, some of the inmates approached him and requested for disposal of their applications for premature release. Consequently, the matter was taken up on the judicial side in the form of a civil writ petition, which evolved into the present petition.
In the order dated 23-02-2023, the Court had directed the State to furnish information on each case as regards the date when such case was initiated and the date when such case came to be finalised or as to whether the same is still pending. In compliance thereof, multiple status reports were filed, the latest being an affidavit filed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab (‘the affidavit’), wherein it was stated that 412 cases of premature release of convicts lodged in different jails of Punjab were pending consideration.
Analysis and Decision
Upon perusal of the record, the Court opined that the policy instituted by the State for premature release was equally applicable to all convicts, and denial to be considered under the same directly impacted their fundamental rights as enshrined under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The Court added that once a convict is eligible to be considered for premature release according to the applicable policy, the State cannot deny them this concession without recording due reasons for the same. The State is duty-bound to act fairly and proceed according to the policy formulated by it in a manner that does not discriminate between similarly situated persons in the absence of an intelligible differentia. Non-arbitrariness is a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution, and the State and all its agencies are required to abide by it. The State cannot indulge in cherry-picking and only provide the concession of premature release to a select few out of the pool of similarly situated convicts, and such an approach is highly inequitable. In this regard, the Court referred to Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail (1978) 4 SCC 104, Rajkumar v. State of U.P., (2024) 9 SCC 598, and State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216.
Upon perusal of the affidavit wherein it was stated that 412 inmates had applied for premature release till 10-12-2024, the Court remarked that the conspicuous failure of the State agencies to process the applications of such a considerable number of inmates was deeply concerning. In doing so, the applicants-inmates were subjected to further incarceration when they might have been eligible to be released. Such an undisciplined approach was symptomatic of the culture of apathy that has developed on the subject of the rights and well-being of convicts. The Court added that in denying them their legal right to be considered under a policy duly devised by the State for a specific purpose, the authorities had essentially categorised them as second-class citizens. The administration cannot truly comprehend the value of liberty as perceived by a prisoner who lives in its absence every single day.
The Court stated that these 412 inmates may be entitled to be released, based on a policy established by law that abides by the standards of ‘fair, just and reasonable’ as held mandatory by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248. However, in a most cavalier manner, their applications remained pending consideration. The incarcerated cannot be expected to live at the whims and fancies of the State, and neither does their incarceration entitle the administration to jeopardize their fundamental rights. Further, the Court stated that a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn. (1978) 4 SCC 494 held that all prisoners shall be entitled to all the rights bestowed upon the citizens by the Constitution of India.
The Court also quoted Nelson Mandela, who said, “To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.”
The Court added that fundamental rights, which include the right to liberty and dignity, have been granted by the Constitution, and the State cannot withdraw them in such an undignified fashion. These rights are inherent to all individuals by virtue of their humanity, putting them beyond the scope of arbitrary authority. The Court remarked that these prisoners had already been punished for the crime that resulted in their conviction. Treating their applications for grant of premature release as trivial and elective appeared to be a measure of further unjustified retribution, which was expressly forbidden by Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Further, the Court exclaimed that perhaps, in doing so, the administration was keeping those deserving of and entitled to a chance at reformation, reintegration, and living a meaningful life. Such conduct reflected a medieval mindset, suggesting stagnation in the evolution of thought. The Court stated, “The approach adopted by the State plays a key role in furthering the cause of reformative justice, and it is duty-bound to proceed in a manner that does not cause or trigger erosion of fundamental rights and promote dehumanisation.”
Thereafter, the Court elaborated upon the theory of reformation and rehabilitation. The Court stated that in a civilised society like ours, it would be unfortunate if an offender was not allowed to realise and fully fathom his mistake and channel that awareness into making fruitful contributions to society. The peno-correctional institutes must not only be looked at as places where punishment is carried out but also as places of rehabilitation. The criminal justice dispensation system must be guided by the idea of allowing the offender to rectify his wrong and reintegrate into society as a law-abiding member once the requisite sentence is served. In this regard, the Court referred to Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In re 2025 SCC OnLine SC 349, wherein the Supreme Court held that once the convict is entitled to release based on the applicable policy, the State would be obliged to consider his case, even without an application by him in this respect.
The Court also referred to Pohlu v. State of Haryana1, the Court issued a direction stating that if the case of any convict was pending consideration with the competent authority for more than six months, he is required to be released on interim bail, in view of the direction issued by this Court in Pawan Kumar v. D.K. Tiwari2.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court stated that regrettably, despite the specific directions issued by this Court in Pohlu (supra) and Pawan Kumar (supra), the inmates awaiting consideration of their premature release application were not being released on interim bail. Shockingly, some applications were pending for almost two years. As such, the Court held that it was left with no other option but to direct the CJMs concerned to release such prisoners on interim bail within two weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Registry to circulate a copy of this order and a copy of the list of all 412 inmates to all the CJMs in whose jurisdiction they fall. Further, the Court directed Haryana and Chandigarh to furnish an affidavit containing the details of the pending cases of premature release from the last two years within 8 weeks in the specified manner.
The matter was listed for 06-08-2025.
[Malkit Singh v. State of Punjab, CRWP No. 1358 of 2019, decided on 21-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the respondent: Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab and Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor, Chandigarh, Vikas Bharadwaj, AAG, Haryana
Buy Constitution of India HERE
1. CRWP No. 8232 of 2022 (O&M)
2. COCP No. 2020 of 2022
