SC has held that a convict has a legal right to be considered for premature release under the remission rules and any executive order passed by the govt.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has held that a convict has a legal right to be considered for premature release under the remission rules and any executive order passed by the Government discriminating against the same class of convicts would be unconstitutional.
The apex court said the right to be considered for remission, keeping in view the Constitutional safeguard of a convict under Articles 20 and 21, must be held to be a legal one, although it cannot be claimed as a matter of Constitutional right.
"Whether by reason of a statutory rule or otherwise if a policy decision has been laid down, the persons who come within the purview thereof, are entitled to be treated equally," a bench of Justices S B Sinha and H S Bedi said, while dismissing an appeal filed by the Haryana Government.
The State Government had filed the appeal against an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had quashed certain policy guidelines framed by the State in 2002 for premature release of life convicts under the remission rules.
Under the said rules, issued under an executive order, the Government had specified that certain class of lifers can be considered for remission after they have completed a sentence of 14 years, whereas, in the case of certain other class of life convicts their case for remission could be considered only after 20 years.
The "discriminatory rules" against the different class of convicts was challenged by some aggrieved prisoners, who argued that there cannot be discrimination among the life convicts for the purpose of premature release.
The High Court upheld the argument and quashed the rules as being unconstitutional, upon which the Government moved the apex court by way of an SLP.
Upholding the High Court's view, the apex court said it is true that no convict has a fundamental right of remission or shortening of sentences.
"Although no convict can be said to have any Constitutional right for obtaining remission in his sentence, he in view of the policy decision itself must be held to have a right to be considered therefor," the apex court said.
According to the apex court whether by reason of a statutory rule or otherwise if a policy decision has been laid down, the persons who come within the purview thereof are entitled to be treated equally.
"It is now well settled that any guidelines which do not have any statutory flavour are merely advisory in nature.
They cannot have the force of a statute," the apex court said while dismissing the Haryana Government's plea.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}