The Supreme Court has held in a judgment that a stereotypical approach by the government to premature release of convicts by relying entirely on the reports of the trial judges or the police will frustrate the goal of reforming prisoners.
A Bench headed by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat said the “ultimate goal of imprisonment, even in the most serious crime, is reformative”.
“If a stereotypical approach in denying the benefit of remission, which ultimately results in premature release, is repeatedly adopted, the entire idea of limiting incarceration for long periods (sometimes spanning a third or more of a convict’s lifetime and in others, result in an indefinite sentence), would be defeated. This could result in a sense of despair and frustration among inmates, who might consider themselves reformed– but continue to be condemned in prison,”Justice Bhat observed in the recent verdict.
Explained | Pardon and remission, and who grants them
A trial judge, in his report, would focus on the crime with little or no attention to the criminal. An investigating agency may be biased, especially if the victims of the crime had been police officers.
The judgment came in a case where the convict had spent 24 years in prison after he was sentenced to life term for fatally shooting three police personnel in Bihar. The appeal filed by the convict said his plea for remission was repeatedly rejected owing to adverse reports from the trial judge.
“Overemphasis on the presiding judge’s opinion and complete disregard of comments of other authorities, while arriving at its conclusion, would render the appropriate government’s decision on a remission application, unsustainable,” the top court observed.
The judgment reasoned that a presiding judge’s view is formed on the basis of the judicial record. It was up to the remission authority to not follow the view mechanically.
“Such an approach has the potential to strike at the heart, and subvert the concept of remission — as a reward and incentive encouraging actions and behaviour geared towards reformation — in a modern legal system,” the judgment read.
The court said a remission process should be done in a comprehensive manner, and include aspects like the convict’s age, state of heath, familial relationships and possibility of reintegration, extent of earned remission, post-conviction conduct, educational qualification earned while in custody, volunteer services offered, and psychological well-being.
