The Supreme Court ordered the release of a convict  to an individual who had served nearly 26 years behind bars. The Court declared that the refusal to grant premature release had infringed upon the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life). This decision underscores the Court's commitment to recognizing the importance of rehabilitating and reforming inmates who may have undergone substantial transformation during their lengthy incarceration.

The bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta observed

“Excluding the relief of premature release to prisoners who’ve served extremely long periods of incarceration not only crushes their spirit and instills despair but signifies society’s resolve to be harsh and unforgiving. The idea of rewarding the prisoner for good conduct is entirely negated", 

In the said matter, the Court considering a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by a prisoner named Joseph (currently aged 65 years) who had been lodged in a prison in Kerala since 1998 after being convicted for the murder and robbery of a woman.

 ''The case related to the plea for compassion and a reevaluation of the treatment of long-serving inmates'', the Bench saidThe Court noted that a rigid adherence to extended prison sentences would lead to a scenario in which convicts spend their entire lives behind bars, never experiencing freedom, even for crimes committed many years ago.

The Court observed, “Regardless of the morality of continued punishment, one may question its rationality. The question is, what is achieved by continuing to punish a person who recognizes the wrongness of what they’ve done, no longer identifies with it, and bears little resemblance to the person they were years earlier". 

The petitioner, whose case was heard under Article 32, originally faced charges of rape and murder in 1994. Initially, in 1996, the trial court acquitted him of these charges. However, in 1998, the High Court overturned the acquittal and found him guilty of offenses under Sections 302 (murder) and 392 (robbery) of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court, in 2000, also upheld both the conviction and the life imprisonment sentence.

The petitioner’s counsel in his plea had contended that his case should be considered based on the policy on remission which existed at the time of his conviction in 1998.

He submitted that “the continued incarceration without extending the benefit of premature release is against statutory rules(1958) and violative of Art. 14 and 21. Moreover, similarly situated persons were granted benefits from 2000-2016". The petitioner also raised the ground of discrimination, contending that persons who committed similar offences were released.

The judgment underscored the importance of taking into account factors like good behavior and rehabilitation when assessing the release of prisoners.

The court opined “The insistence of guidelines obdurately not to look beyond the red lines drawn by it and the continued in denial to consider the impact of prison good behavior and other relevant factors to ensure that such individual has been rid of the likelihood of causing harm results in violation of Art. 14."

The Court further observed that asking the petitioner to approach the remission advisory board again will be a "cruel outcome" considering his long period of incarceration.

"The grand vision of the rule of law and the idea of fairness is then swept away at the altar of procedure which this court has repeatedly held to be a handmaiden of justice", observed the Court while ordering his immediate release.

Case Title: Joseph v. State of Kerala