The Supreme Court has stated that the regulations regarding the early release of a convicted individual, which were in place at the time of the conviction, will be applicable unless subsequently enacted more lenient rules come into effect.

During a hearing on the plea of a murder convict in Uttarakhand, a panel consisting of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra made the above observation. The convict was seeking premature release, citing that he had served 24 years of the actual sentence and a total of 30 years with remission.

The representative for Uttarakhand argued that following its establishment as a separate state on November 9, 2000, certain laws and policies from the original state of Uttar Pradesh, including the premature release policy, were retained and continued to be effective until Uttarakhand formulated its own set of laws. He stated that the policy for the sentencing, pardon, and premature release of individuals convicted with life imprisonment by the court in Uttarakhand was established on November 29, 2022.

The Supreme Court bench asserted, "The legal principle is firmly established: the policy in place at the time of conviction will apply unless a subsequently enacted, more lenient policy comes into effect."

Advocate Rishi Malhotra, representing the petitioner Rajesh Sharma, argued that in the present case, the policy of Uttar Pradesh would be applicable.

The bench issued an order on November 10, stating, "Considering that the case for premature release has not yet been reviewed, we instruct that the petitioner's case for premature release must be positively considered on or before November 30, 2023. Any failure to adhere to this directive will result in appropriate legal consequences."

While disposing of the plea, the Supreme Court instructed that the Chief of Uttarakhand police should submit an affidavit after the consideration of the case for premature release. This affidavit is to be filed with the court registrar, and failure to comply with this directive will result in the revival of proceedings before the Supreme Court.

The bench recorded in its order that Rajesh Sharma and four other co-accused were found guilty by the Sessions Judge on May 9, 2002, for multiple offenses, including section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 25 of the Arms Act. Subsequently, they were handed down death sentences.

The bench observed, "The High Court, through its judgment on August 5, 2004, affirmed the conviction but altered the death sentence to life imprisonment. The conviction has reached its finality. The petitioner has served twenty-four years of the actual sentence and asserts to have completed thirty years, including remission. The petitioner is now seeking premature release."