Supreme Court objects to Kerala policy excluding certain convicts from remission; orders release of man in jail for 26 years

The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the release of a man who had been behind bars for over 26 years after being convicted for robbing and murdering his sister-in-law. [Joseph vs State of Kerala and ors].A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta also came down on the Kerala government for having earlier denied his applications for remission by relying on a rule that excludes those who had committed murders against women from availing the benefit of remission. "To issue a policy directive, or guidelines, over and above the (Travancore-Cochin Prison) Act and Rules framed (where the latter forms part and parcel of the former), and undermine what they encapsulate, cannot be countenanced. Blanket exclusion of certain offences, from the scope of grant of remission, especially by way of an executive policy, is not only arbitrary, but turns the ideals of reformation that run through our criminal justice system, on its head", the Court observed.The bench added that typecasting such convicts through inflexible guidelines based on crimes committed several years ago undermines their reformative potential, and can crush the life force out of such individuals."For instance, a 19 or 20 year old individual convicted for a crime, which finds place in the list which bars premature release, altogether, would mean that such person would never see freedom, and would die within the prison walls ... 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, a prisoner for good conduct is entirely negated," the top court said..The crime took place in 1994. The trial court had initially acquitted the accused in 1996. The High Court reversed the acquittal in 1998 and sentenced the him to life imprisonment for rape, murder, and robbery. In 2000, the Supreme Court acquitted him of the offence of rape, but confirmed the rest of the High Court's ruling.The convict later applied for remission or early release from prison. His application was approved by the Jail Advisory Board on three different occasions over the years, but the State government rejected his application each time.Pertinently, the Kerala government had, in April 2022, excluded the following categories of convicts from availing the benefit of remission: those involved in the most cruel murder, those who committed the murder of women and children, or committed murder with rape, and those undergoing treatment for mental illness whose relatives were reluctant to receive them. After the State government rejected his application for remission in September last year, the convict moved a plea before the Supreme Court for relief. .The top court at the outset stated that it is settled law that the remission policy prevailing on the date of conviction has to be applied unless a more liberal policy is subsequently put in place.Further, the Supreme Court emphasised that a discretion conferred widely by a plenary statute or statutory rules cannot be lightly fettered as part of administrative policy."While the sentencing courts may ... now impose term sentences (in excess of 14 or 20 years) for crimes that are specially heinous, but not reaching the level of ‘rarest of rare’ (warranting the death penalty), the State government cannot – especially by way of executive instruction, take on such a role, for crimes as it deems fit ... The latitude the Constitution gives to the executive, under Articles 72 and 162, in regard to matters such as remission, commutation, etc, therefore, cannot be caged or boxed in the form of guidelines, which are inflexible", the Court added..The bench stressed that asking the convict to again approach the Advisory authorities at this stage would be a 'cruel outcome', like being granted only a salve to fight a raging fire, in the name of procedure. .The Court, therefore, ordered the immediate release of the prisoner in the interest of justice..Advocate Adolf Mathew appeared for the convict, one Joseph. Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for the Kerala government..[Read judgment]