SC to pass verdict on whether life term convicts be released before completing mandatory 14 years jail

The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce on Friday its judgement on a legal question - whether a life term convict can be released prematurely before completing minimum 14 years of jail term, in accordance with a policy framed by a state government.

A bench of Justices U U Lalit, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran would deliver the verdict at 10.30 am on July 17.

The apex court has framed legal issues including whether a policy could be framed under Article 161 (power of Governor to pardon or grant remission) of the Constitution, which would run counter to the mandate of Section 433A Criminal Procedure Code.

The matter arose out of a policy framed by the Haryana government wherein on the occasion of Independence Day i.e. August 15, 2019, the Governor, in exercise of the powers (of remission, pardon etc) under Article 161 of the Constitution, granted special remission to prisoners who were undergoing sentence as a result of their conviction by the courts in the state.

According to the policy, those entitled to get relief included convicts, who have been sentenced for life and are 75 years or above in case of male and of 65 years or above in case of female as on August 15, 2019 and have completed eight years of actual sentence in case of male convicts

and six years of actual sentence in case of female convicts including undertrial period and excluding parole period. The conduct of such prisoners has to remain satisfactory during confinement and they must not have committed any major jail offence in the last two years.

As the matter reached the apex court, it said, "Prima facie the policy appears to be in conflict with Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This provision restricted power of remission on life term convicts, unless they completed at least 14 years of jail.

The Haryana government, for its part, maintained that the policy has been framed pursuant to the power conferred upon the Governor of the State under Article 161 of the Constitution and, as such, would not be hit by the principles emanating from Section 433A of the Code.

During the hearing, the court has also sought to know whether all individual cases in which policy benefit was granted were placed before the Governor and whether facts of individual cases were considered by the authority before granting benefit of remission.