Supreme Court settles calculation of sentence for prisoners released on parole in criminal cases: Anil Kumar vs. State of Haryana (24 March 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 24 March 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 296
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a prisoner’s time spent on parole be counted towards their total sentence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, clarifying the rules for calculating prison time when a convict is granted temporary release. This judgment settles the issue that period of parole will not be counted towards the total period of sentence. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The petitioner, Anil Kumar, was convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was later released on emergency parole following the directions of the High-Powered Committee constituted by the Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic. The core issue revolves around whether this period of parole should be included when calculating the total time served in prison.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner, Anil Kumar, challenged the decision of the High-Powered Committee which stated that the period of release on interim parole shall not be counted towards the total period of the sentence. The petitioner argued that his release was not under Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, but under the directions of the Supreme Court. The State of Haryana, however, contended that the decision of the Committee was in line with Section 3(3) of the Act, 1988, and the judgments of the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case is the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988. Specifically, Section 3(3) of the Act, 1988 states:

“The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of sentence of a prisoner.”

This provision dictates that any time spent on temporary release or parole will not be included when calculating the total sentence served by a prisoner. The Supreme Court has also considered previous judgments on the matter.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner was released on emergency parole due to the COVID-19 pandemic, following the directions of the High-Powered Committee, not under Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988.
• The High-Powered Committee’s decision to not count the parole period towards the total sentence was incorrect.
• Other states count the period of release on interim parole towards the total sentence.
• If the parole period is not counted, it would delay the petitioner’s eligibility for remission, which is detrimental to his interests.

State of Haryana’s Arguments:

• The petitioner was convicted for serious offences (Sections 302/34 of IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment, which has been upheld up to the Supreme Court.
• The petitioner was released on emergency parole due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as per the High-Powered Committee’s decision.
• Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, explicitly states that the period of temporary release shall not be counted towards the total period of sentence.
• The High-Powered Committee’s decision is in consonance with the statutory provisions.
• The Supreme Court has already decided that the period of parole should not be counted towards the total period of sentence in Rohan Dhungat Etc. Vs. The State of Goa & Ors. Etc. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 16), Avtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 18, and State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh (2000) 3 SCC 394.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether a convict/prisoner who has been released on temporary parole/emergency parole, pursuant to the decision of the High-Powered Committee constituted as per the orders passed by this Court in SWM (C) No. 1/2020, such parole period shall be counted towards the total period of sentence of the convict – prisoner?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the explicit language of Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, and the consistent interpretation of this provision in prior judgments. The Court emphasized that the statutory provision clearly states that the period of temporary release shall not be counted towards the total period of sentence. The Court also highlighted the need to maintain the integrity of the sentencing process and ensure that the actual imprisonment is served. The Court noted that if the period of parole were to be included, it could potentially defeat the purpose of actual imprisonment, as influential prisoners could exploit the parole system to reduce their time in prison.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that his release was not under the Act, 1988, stating that the High-Powered Committee’s decision was in line with the statutory provision. The Court also dismissed the argument regarding the delay in remission, emphasizing that the law clearly excludes parole periods from the total sentence.

The Supreme Court concluded that “when the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, he has to undergo the said sentence actually subject to any rule/policy in respect of remission and the period during which he is released on emergency/interim parole has to be excluded for the purpose of actual imprisonment.”

The Court also observed that “if the submission on behalf of the prisoners that the period of parole is to be included while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment is accepted, in that case, any prisoner who may be influential may get the parole for number of times as there is no restrictions and it can be granted number of times and if the submission on behalf of the prisoners is accepted, it may defeat the very object and purpose of actual imprisonment.”

The Court also stated that “we are of the firm view that for the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded.”

Key Takeaways

• The period of release on parole will not be counted towards the total period of sentence for prisoners in Haryana.
• This decision is based on Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988.
• The Supreme Court has consistently held that parole periods should be excluded from the calculation of actual imprisonment.
• This judgment ensures that the integrity of the sentencing process is maintained and prevents misuse of the parole system.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the period of parole shall not be counted towards the total period of sentence. This case reaffirms the settled position of law as established in previous judgments of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh, Mohinder Singh, and Rohan Dhungat.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decision of the High-Powered Committee. The judgment clarifies that the period of parole will not be counted towards the total sentence of a prisoner in Haryana, reinforcing the statutory provisions and previous judicial pronouncements on the matter.