State Cannot Cherry-Pick Premature Release Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Last Updated on February 24, 2025 by Srijan Raj

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has determined that the state cannot selectively grant premature release concessions to a limited number of convicts, as this practice is “highly unfair.” Liberty is the most valuable asset for a prisoner receiving a life sentence, according to Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, and it shouldn’t be expected that all prisoners will seek retribution on those who held them upon their release. The court further emphasised that the Indian Constitution’s signature theme is social justice and that the small man who is in danger of losing his freedom is the one who benefits from it. The court also highlighted that social justice is the signature tune of the Indian Constitution, and the little man in peril of losing his liberty is the consumer of social justice.

The court emphasised that the state is duty-bound to act fairly and proceed according to the policy formulated by it in a manner that does not discriminate between similarly situated persons in the absence of an intelligible differentia. The court referred to the case of Pawar Kumar, who was convicted in a criminal case and awarded life imprisonment. Kumar’s counsel argued that his case is covered by the policy issued in April 2002, but the policy does not provide provisions for deferment of the case of a convict.

The court opined that the policy instituted by the state for premature release is equally applicable to all convicts and directly impacts their fundamental rights as enshrined under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court also referred to the Apex Court’s decision in State of Haryana vs. Jagdish, wherein it was held that authorities may consider the case mainly considering factors such as whether the offence was an individual act of crime without affecting society at large, the chance of future recurrence, the convict’s potentiality, the fruitful purpose of confining the convict, and the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family.

The court said that it would be naive to hope for a society without crime, but it would be in line with the State’s welfarist approach to rehabilitation of offenders and allowing them to reshape themselves as functional members of society. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s case afresh, strictly in accordance with the applicable policy and the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jagdish’s case and Pohlu @ Polu Ram’s case.

Case Title: Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana