The High Court of Karnataka on Friday ordered issue of notice to the State government on a PIL petition, which has questioned the constitutional validity of the bar imposed on the premature release of certain categories of life convicts in the guidelines issued in 2020 to consider cases for premature release of life convicts.
A Division Bench comprising acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J.M. Khazi passed the order on the petition filed by Justice Initiative Foundation, a city-based not-for-profit company.
The petitioner has questioned the legality of bar imposed on six broad categories among the several categories of life convicts who have been kept out of the purview of consideration for premature release.
Categories of convicts
Bar on release of following categories of life convicts have been challenged by the petitioner. Foreign nationals; prisoners convicted by other countries/States lodged in the prisons of Karnataka; prisoners convicted for murder of prison officials, prisoner, prison visitor or public servant while on duty; prisoners convicted for offences against the State and offences against the Army, Navy and Air Force; prisoners convicted for murder while serving life sentence; and gangsters, contract killers, smugglers, drug traffickers, and perpetrators of murder committed with pre-mediation and with exceptional violence or perversity.
Pointing out that there were 2,513 life convicts in Karnataka as per 2019 prison data, the petitioner has claimed that the guidelines do not follow any rational basis or principles of equality or equity in consideration of life convicts to be made eligible for premature release besides being contrary to the directions of the apex court and the guidelines of the National Human Rights Commission.
Violations
The guidelines are violative of the Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India for by creating arbitrary distinctions between similarly situated life convicts and curtailing their life and personal liberty, the petition has alleged while pointing out that no procedure is prescribed for recommending a prisoner for premature release by the Advisory Board.
Arguing that eligibility of any convict for release should be done in accordance with an objective, scientific and reasonable assessment of such convict, the petitioner has claimed that in the present system a prisoner would not get a right to give representation and all records of prisoner get submitted without his/her knowledge and explanation on his/her side for any adverse remarks.
