Date of the Judgment: 10 February 2022
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., Surya Kant, J., and Vikram Nath, J.
Can a state government reject a premature release application based on a general apprehension of resentment from the victim’s side, without considering the convict’s behavior in jail? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the premature release of a life convict. The Court emphasized that decisions on premature release must be based on the policy in effect at the time of conviction and a thorough evaluation of relevant factors, not on generalized concerns. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Vikram Nath, with the opinion authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.
Case Background
The petitioner, Sharafat Ali, was convicted on 17 January 2005 for an offense under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld the trial court’s decision on 3 June 2016, and the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 20 April 2018.
Having served 17 years, 9 months, and 26 days of his sentence, the petitioner applied for premature release. However, the State government rejected his application on 30 July 2021. The rejection order cited reports from the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Amethi, stating that the petitioner’s release could cause resentment among the victim’s family and that he might commit another offense. The order also described the petitioner as having an “extremist nature”.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 17 January 2005 | Petitioner convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. |
| 3 June 2016 | The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirmed the trial court’s decision. |
| 20 April 2018 | The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. |
| 30 July 2021 | The State government rejected the petitioner’s application for premature release. |
| 8 November 2021 | Notice was issued in the petition by the Supreme Court. |
| 10 February 2022 | The Supreme Court allowed the petition and set aside the order of the State Government. |
Course of Proceedings
The petitioner, Sharafat Ali, challenged the rejection of his premature release application by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued a notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh on 8 November 2021, and the State filed a counter-affidavit.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to the principle that premature release applications must be considered based on the policy in effect at the time of the conviction. This principle has been reiterated in several judgments, including State of Haryana & Ors. vs Jagdish and State of Haryana and Others vs Raj Kumar @ Bitu.
The relevant legal provision in this case is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder. Additionally, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.
Arguments
The petitioner argued that the State government’s order rejecting his premature release application was arbitrary and did not consider relevant factors such as his conduct in jail. The State, on the other hand, defended its decision based on the reports from the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, which highlighted the potential for resentment and the possibility of the petitioner committing another offense.
The State’s argument relied on the apprehension of public disorder and the petitioner’s alleged “extremist nature,” while the petitioner emphasized his right to be considered for premature release based on the applicable policy and his behavior during his imprisonment.
| Submissions | Petitioner’s Arguments | State’s Arguments |
|---|---|---|
| Premature Release Policy | ✓ Application should be considered based on the policy at the time of conviction (17 January 2005). | ✓ Rejection based on potential resentment from the victim’s side and the possibility of repeat offense. |
| Application of Mind | ✓ Order lacks application of mind to relevant circumstances. ✓ No consideration of prior criminal history (except the present case). ✓ No consideration of conduct and behavior in jail. ✓ No consideration of whether the release would pose a danger to society. |
✓ Relied on reports from the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police. ✓ Cited the petitioner’s “extremist nature” and potential for bitterness among parties. |
| Relevant Considerations | ✓ The order contains general observations applicable to all serious offenses. ✓ The order failed to consider the conduct of the petitioner in jail. |
✓ General apprehension of public disorder. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues. However, the core issue before the court was whether the State government’s order rejecting the petitioner’s application for premature release was legally valid. The sub-issues that the Court dealt with are:
- Whether the State government considered the relevant factors while rejecting the application for premature release.
- Whether the State government applied the correct policy while considering the application for premature release.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the State government considered the relevant factors while rejecting the application for premature release. | The Court found that the State government’s order lacked a proper application of mind to the relevant circumstances. The order contained general observations not specific to the petitioner’s case and failed to consider his conduct in jail. |
| Whether the State government applied the correct policy while considering the application for premature release. | The Court reiterated that the application must be considered based on the policy in effect at the time of conviction (17 January 2005). The Court did not find any fault with the application of the policy in this case, but the Court did find fault with the lack of application of mind to relevant circumstances. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Haryana & Ors. vs Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Reiterated the principle that premature release applications must be considered based on the policy in effect at the time of conviction. |
| State of Haryana and Others vs Raj Kumar @ Bitu (2021) 9 SCC 292 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Reiterated the principle that premature release applications must be considered based on the policy in effect at the time of conviction. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The State government’s order was based on potential resentment from the victim’s side and the possibility of a repeat offense. | The Court found these reasons to be general observations applicable to most serious offenses and not specific to the petitioner’s case. The Court held that the State government failed to consider relevant factors such as the petitioner’s conduct in jail and whether he posed a danger to society. |
| The petitioner’s application for premature release should be considered based on the policy at the time of conviction. | The Court affirmed this submission and directed the State government to reconsider the application based on the policy as it stood on 17 January 2005. |
The following authorities were viewed by the Court:
- State of Haryana & Ors. vs Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216: The Court followed this authority to reiterate that the application for premature release must be considered based on the policy at the time of conviction.
- State of Haryana and Others vs Raj Kumar @ Bitu (2021) 9 SCC 292: The Court followed this authority to reiterate that the application for premature release must be considered based on the policy at the time of conviction.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the lack of a considered application of mind by the State government in rejecting the petitioner’s premature release application. The Court emphasized that the State government must consider all relevant circumstances, including the convict’s behavior in jail and the potential danger to society, and not just rely on general apprehensions of resentment from the victim’s side. The Court was also concerned that the order of the State Government did not take into account the policy as it stood on the date of conviction.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of Application of Mind | 40% |
| Failure to Consider Relevant Factors | 30% |
| Reliance on General Apprehensions | 20% |
| Non-consideration of the policy at the time of conviction | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The court’s reasoning was primarily driven by legal principles and the need for a fair and considered decision-making process in matters of premature release. The court focused on the legal requirement that the State must consider all relevant factors and apply the correct policy, rather than relying on general concerns.
Logical Reasoning
The Court considered the State’s argument that the release may cause resentment among the victim’s family and that the petitioner may commit another offense. However, the Court rejected this argument as it was based on general observations and did not take into account the petitioner’s specific circumstances. The Court emphasized that the State must consider all relevant factors before rejecting an application for premature release.
The Court’s decision was based on the principle that premature release is a right of the convict, and the State must consider all relevant factors before rejecting such an application. The Court held that the State’s order was arbitrary and did not meet the standards required by law.
The Court stated, “The order which has been passed by the State government in the present case is bereft of an application of mind to relevant circumstances bearing on whether the petitioner should be released prematurely.” Further, the Court noted, “The order does not contain any reference whatsoever to whether the petitioner possesses any prior criminal history, save and except for the present case. Similarly, the order is completely silent on the conduct and behavior of the petitioner in jail and after he was convicted of the offence.” The Court also emphasized, “There has to be a considered application of mind to the facts of each case.”
There were no minority opinions in this case. The three-judge bench unanimously agreed that the State government’s order was invalid and required reconsideration.
This judgment has implications for future cases involving premature release. It emphasizes the need for a thorough and considered decision-making process, based on relevant factors and the policy in effect at the time of conviction. It also highlights that general apprehensions or concerns are not sufficient grounds for rejecting a premature release application.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Premature release applications must be considered based on the policy in effect at the time of conviction.
- ✓ State governments must apply their mind to relevant circumstances, including the convict’s behavior in jail and potential danger to society.
- ✓ General apprehensions or concerns are not sufficient grounds for rejecting a premature release application.
- ✓ The decision-making process must be thorough and considered, not arbitrary.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the State government’s order dated 30 July 2021. The Court directed the State government to reconsider the petitioner’s application for premature release based on the policy as it stood on 17 January 2005. The Court further directed that the reconsideration should take into account all relevant facts and circumstances, including those mentioned in the judgment, and that this exercise should be completed within two months from the date of the order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State government must apply its mind to relevant circumstances and consider the policy as it stood on the date of conviction while deciding on premature release applications. This judgment reinforces the principle that premature release is a right of the convict, and the State must consider all relevant factors before rejecting such an application. This judgment does not change the previous position of law, but it does reiterate the importance of a fair and considered decision-making process in matters of premature release.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Sharafat Ali vs. State of Uttar Pradesh underscores the importance of a fair and considered approach to premature release applications. The Court emphasized that state governments must not rely on general apprehensions or concerns but must thoroughly evaluate all relevant factors, including the convict’s behavior in jail and potential danger to society, based on the policy in effect at the time of conviction. This judgment sets a clear precedent for future cases, ensuring that premature release decisions are based on a proper application of mind and relevant circumstances.