Calcutta High Court Upholds Right to Dignity: Orders Reconsideration of Convict’s Release Plea

Last Updated on January 15, 2024 by News Desk

In a recent verdict, the Calcutta High Court, through a single-bench led by Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, underscored the inviolable right of an individual under Article 21 to live a life of dignity, asserting that a prior conviction should not be a perpetual barrier. The case in question, Mahuya Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal and others, involved a plea for the premature release of a convict serving a life sentence, challenging the rejection by the Sentence Review Board (SSRB).

The petitioner, the wife of the convict, contested the SSRB’s decision, questioning both its constitution and the grounds for denial. The petitioner argued that the SSRB had not adhered to the holistic approach advocated by the Supreme Court for considering rehabilitation and remission, independent of the presiding judge or police perspective. The State counsel, while supplying a summary of reasons for rejection, lacked specific instructions.

Justice Bhattacharya emphasized that the modern criminal justice system prioritizes reformation over retribution. Noting that the petitioner’s husband had already spent over two decades behind bars, the court highlighted that the SSRB had not properly considered various factors outlined by the apex court beyond the nature of the crime. The court found the police report cited for denial ‘cryptic,’ emphasizing that the nature of the crime, which occurred long ago, was the primary consideration.

Furthermore, the court observed that the victim’s family’s opposition to the early release needed solid reasons, and in this case, such justifications were lacking. It concluded that subjecting the petitioner to further punishment after serving 20 years in prison would be unjust, especially considering the SSRB’s inadequacies.

In light of the foregoing, the Calcutta High Court directed the SSRB to reconsider the petitioner’s plea within one month, emphasizing the need to follow the criteria specified in the order. The verdict echoes a commitment to the constitutional right to a life of dignity, signaling a shift towards a more rehabilitative approach in criminal justice, aligning with contemporary legal principles. The court’s decision reaffirms the evolving notion that punishment should be reformative rather than purely punitive, marking a significant stride in the pursuit of justice with compassion.

Written — Athi Venkatesh AVD