New Delhi: The Supreme Court last Tuesday (January 22) reversed a progressive judgment of the Madras high court directing the state government in 2016 to consider the eligibility of all life convicts for premature release if they had completed the minimum sentence of 14 years, irrespective of their commission of other offences carrying lesser sentences.
The judgment was pronounced by a bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna.
P. Veerabharaathi, aged 48 years, is a life convict lodged in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. He filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the Tamil Nadu government’s decision in 2008 granting premature release to convicts who had completed seven years of actual imprisonment as on September 15, 2008, the birthday of the state’s former chief minister C.N. Annadurai. The state government also released 66 life convicts, who were aged 60 years and above and had completed five years of actual imprisonment as on that day, subject to certain conditions.
Veerabharaathi was not given the benefit of the Government’s order because he was awarded the death penalty, which was commuted to life imprisonment by the appellate court. Veerabharaathi challenged this decision first before the Madras high court and later before the Supreme Court, losing both. In 2014, while dismissing his special leave petition, the Supreme Court directed the state government to consider his plea for remission/commutation in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual and pass an appropriate order within a period of two months.
Tamil Nadu Prison Rules
The Tamil Nadu government rejected his request for premature release, citing Rule 341(3) of the the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983. Under the rules, the case of a life convict shall be considered for premature release only on his completing ten years of actual imprisonment, whereas, in case of convict other than a life convict, his case shall be considered for remission on his completing 2/3rd of the sentence, including the remission.
Also Read: Supreme Court Order on Faculty Quota Could See Reduction in SC, ST and OBC Teachers
The proviso to sub-rule (3) makes it clear that the prisoners convicted of rape, forgery, dacoity, terrorist crimes, offences against the state and prisoners sentenced under Sections 224, 376, 396 to 400, 402, 467, 471, 472, 474, 489-A, 489-B, and 489-D of the Indian Penal Code, shall not be eligible for being considered for premature release, which means they are not eligible for being considered on their completing 2/3rd of their sentences.
The high court clarified that they can be considered only on completing 14 years of imprisonment as provided in sub-rule (2). This does not exclude a life convict, who has been convicted for any offence like an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Irrespective of the nature of the offence committed, if he is a life convict, he will be eligible for consideration for premature release on his completing 14 years of actual imprisonment, the high court held in its order.
In this case, the convict, sentenced for rape, had already completed the period of imprisonment, imposed for the offence and also completed 14 years of imprisonment as a lifer.
The question which arose in this case is if a person convicted and sentenced for life or any period of over three years is also convicted and sentenced for another offence under the “ineligible” sections, would he be entitled for premature release. In other words, higher offences involving sentence of imprisonment for life or even death sentence commuted to life imprisonment would entitle a convict to consideration of his case for early release. But, if the same lifer is to be convicted also for a much lesser offence, and sentenced to small periods of imprisonment, notwithstanding the fact that he had completed more than ten years of custody, he would still not be eligible for early release.
“Such a situation… cannot be allowed to prevail by understanding the operation of the Rules in the manner suggested on behalf of the appellants”, the Supreme Court held.
Madras high court. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The Tamil Nadu inspector general of prisons and the state government took diametrically opposite positions on the issue. The IG of prisons, in the letter/memo issued on November 4, 1989, clarified that if a convicted prisoner undergoing imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC is also convicted and sentenced to undergo minor imprisonment under ineligible sections of IPC (for example, if also sentenced to undergo seven years of imprisonment for rape, dacoity with murder etc.) and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and if the convict had served out the sentence under the ineligible sections as envisaged (that is the minor imprisonment), the ineligible sections of IPC would not prevent the premature release of that convict in respect of the life sentence under Section 302 IPC.
Also Read: Arun Jaitley’s Attempt to Influence CBI in ICICI Case Is Yet Another Low for Modi Govt
The Tamil Nadu government took the view that if a person is to be convicted and sentenced under an ineligible section/offence, he would not be entitled to the benefit of early/premature release under the prison rules.
The Supreme Court held:
The operation of the Rules in the manner as suggested on behalf of the appellants would result in a highly incongruous situation which the rule making authority could not have been understood to have contemplated or envisaged.
Denial of similar relief to other prisoners
The high court had held in its judgment as follows:
During the course of hearing, it was also brought to our notice that by misinterpreting Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 341 of the Rules, viz-a-viz sub-Rule 2 of Rule 341 of the Rules and ignoring the clarification issued by the Director General of Prisons, as referred to above, the claims of several life convicts in the State for premature release have been rejected by the first respondent. Many of the prisoners, due to ignorance of law or out of lack of wherewithal and help, without approaching this Court for relief, are languishing in various prisons in the State.
Though they have not approached this Court, on that score alone, we cannot deny justice to them, as poverty and ignorance cannot stand in the way of a person securing his right, such as, liberty, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. Therefore, we direct the first respondent to review all the cases of the life convicts, who have completed 14 years of imprisonment lodged in various prisons in the State, where their claims for premature release have been rejected placing reliance erroneously on the proviso to Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 341 of the Rules, thereby ignoring the clarification issued by the Director General of Prisons, by his proceedings dated 04.11.1989.
In short, the first respondent shall act on the said clarification and review the cases of such eligible convicts, who are lodged in various jails in the State. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, as indicated above.
The Supreme Court, overruling this part of the high court’s order, held that it was not justified in extending the directions beyond the parties to the proceedings before it.