“What is achieved by continuing to punish a reformed prisoner?”: says the Supreme Court while releasing a convict after 26 years
Last Updated on September 21, 2023 by News Desk
Supreme court on Thursday ordered the release of a convict who spent 26 years behind bars stating that denying him a premature release would amount to the violation of his fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 21 of the constitution of India.
“Excluding the relief of premature release to prisoners who have served extremely long periods of incarceration not only crushes their spirit and instils despair but signifies society’s resolve to be harsh and unforgiving. The idea of rewarding the prisoner for good conduct is entirely negated.” The court observed.
As per the live law report, The bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta was hearing the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the constitution, by the prisoner named Joseph, who was convicted of the murder and robbery of a woman. (Joseph v. State of Kerala)
The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner was initially charged with rape and murder in 1994. He was acquitted by the trial court in 1996 and later, this decision was reversed by the high court and he was convicted under section 302 and section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2000.
The petitioner’s request for release was repeatedly denied by the government. Further, an order restricting his premature release was also passed by the government stating that the convicts who had committed such heinous crimes should not be released.
The counsel representing the petitioner submitted, “his continued incarceration without extending the benefit of premature release is against statutory rules (1958) and violative of Art. 14 and 21. Moreover, similarly situated persons were granted benefits from 2000-2016.”
The bench emphasized the importance of considering the transformation of the convict due to rehabilitation and reformation during their time behind bars. “Regardless of the morality of continued punishment, one may question its rationality. The question is, what is achieved by continuing to punish a person who recognizes the wrongness of what they have done, no longer identifies with it, and bears little resemblance to the person they were years earlier.”
Additionally, the Court also cited National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) guidelines, which recommend release after serving 25 years, even for heinous crimes.
Finally, the court allowed the petition and disposed of pending applications.
Written by Shagun Behal
