Premature Release of Prisoners

Premature Release of Prisoners
Dr. Mridul Srivastava

Dr. Anup Yadava
Preeti Dwivedi
2015
©Authors
ISBN 978-81-928449-5-4
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or
by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the
authors/publishers
First Published 2015
Printed in India
Published by
WORDSCOPE, PUBLISHERS PRIVATE LIMITED
566/521, Jai Prkash Nagar,
Alambagh, Lucknow-226 005
& Late Sri Narendra Kumar Srivastava Foundation
Printed by
Army Printing Press
Sadar Cantt, Nehru Road,
Lucknow
Dedicated to
Late Prof. S.P. Srivastava
Phone/Fax : 0522-2455798
Dy. Inspector Gen. (Jail)
Lucknow Range Lucknow
e-mail : sharadk18@gmail.com
FOREWORD
The journey of mankind from barbarianism to civilization is the story of the

evolution of the reformative theory of punishment from the retributory theory of,
"an eye for an eye".
Command and Punishment are the characteristics of the Sovereign, so, are
Kshama that is Pardon and Reprieve or Remission. Constitution of India while
taking a note of these distinctive features has also armed the constitutional
authorities, with adequate, though not absolute power to dispense justice.
Clemency, though historically believed to be a prerogative of the Crown
or the Sovereign has become an intricate and complex issue circumscribed by
multiple legislations and a plethora of judicial precedents.
The checks and balances provided by the constitution in the eld of
administration of justice have also led to variation in its formulations and
application, which deserve to be addressed promptly.
The present book "Premature Release of Prisoners" has been successful in
clarifying the subject in depth and in removing the inconsistencies from the
practice and proceedures of the subject. The book will be of immense assistance
and valuable guidance on the subject to the legal professionals, legal institutes
etc. and also to the government departments. The authors Dr. Mridul Srivastava,
Dr. AnupYadava & Ms. Preeti Dwivedi do deserve all appreciation for their
valuable contribution on this issue of great importance.
I congratulate the Authors for this uphill achievement.
(Dr. Sharad)
Residence : House No. 1522 Sector K-1, Aashiyana Colony, Lucknow-226 012
(i)
Preface
Bail not the jail should be the order of the day is the accepted view of the
Indian system of justice. With the advancement of the civilized society, the end
of the administration of criminal justice has gone a thorough and drastic change.
From the retributory barbaric theory to the reformative end of criminal justice is
in practice where the criminal is treated as an unhealthy and ailing person. It is
the Gandhian view that we should hate the crime and not the criminal. We are
also hopeful that states now be more liberal in granting the premature release
to the genuine and deserving prisoners so that they may be reintegrated in the
society as a law abiding citizen, which is the spirit of correction, reformation and
rehabilitation policies prevailing in all over the world. Therefore, to punish a
criminal for his one-time ill success for the whole life socially and preventing him
behind the high security fortress of prison do not synchronize perfectly with the
norms of civilized society.
Today, India is the largest democracy in the world. Its legal system is one of
the nest and successful, quantitatively and qualitatively also. But if we peep into
the past of the existence of the legal system then it is revealed that prior to 1860
there was no law as such in existence with exception of Shariah, an Islamic law
of religious code of conduct. But after the liquidation of East India Company and
merging of all its assets into British Empire, the process of administering India
as a British dominion on scientic line did start with codication of laws and
establishment of series of courts of all levels. Even after becoming independent in
1947 the same legal system in India continues with addition and modication of
laws by the Union Government as well as by the State Governments.
India has adopted the pattern of administration from Britain and allowed
the continuity of the laws codied during British period, which has a signicant
mark of British system on India. With criminology point of view the Indian Penal
Code is the substantive law and the Code of Criminal Procedure is the procedural
one, along with the large multiples of essential laws applicable in order to achieve
the end of criminal justice. While multitudes of the offence are dened and
punishment for each is prescribed in the Indian Penal Laws, then the sections in
the Code of Criminal Procedure are also incorporated the power for President
and Governor in the Constitution and Statutes for reduction, modication and
exemptions of the punishments pronounced by the judiciary of our country.
“We the people of India” is the basic source of all powers to the Union
and State governments and Article 72 and Article 161 of the Constitution do
provide the power of clemency to the President and the Governors. Article 72
provides much wider powers because of the nature of the Constitution as the
( iii )
law making powers of the Union government extends on the Union and on the
concurrent lists unchecked and also on the items which are not enumerated in 1st
and 3rd list of the VIIth Schedule, as the residuary powers are rest with the Union
Government. But the powers of the Governors are similar to the President within
the Executive jurisdiction of the State, subject to the few exceptions such as in
cases of Sentence pronounced under Court Martial. Apart from the Constitutional
powers to Governors, the head of the States and to the President of India similar
statutory powers are provided under Chapter XXXII (E) in the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Sections 432 to 435 deal with the powers of suspension, remission
and commutation of sentences by the respective State governments as well as by
the Government of India. It also provides ner shades and delicate insistence in
exercising these powers in consonance with Constitutionalism.
Although power of pardon under clemency under the referred articles of the
Constitution of India and the sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 are
of the executives in nature, but the procedure followed by the States suffers from
uncertainty, lack of uniformity and guiding track.
We personally are indebted to Prof. Arvind Tiwari, Tata Institute of Social
Sciences, Sri Sharad Kulsheshtra, DIG Prisons, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh and Sri K.B.
Joshi, Research Ofcer, Prison Department for their valuable support. Subject
has been dealt with systematically, analytically and provides deep insight of the
knowledge and practice. We are sure that the book will satisfy and answer all the
needs and queries of the legal practitioners, jurists, institutes of legal learning,
successfully, and also enlighten the area of the opacity and darkness of the subject.
Dr. Mridul Srivastava

Dr. Anup Yadava
Preeti Dwivedi
( iv )
Contents
Page No.
Foreword
Preface
1. Evolution of Punishment System in India 01
2. Punishment Vs Reformation and Rehabilitation 09
3. Challenges before the Premature Release of Prisoners 16
System
4. The System of Premature Release of Prisoners in India 23
5. International Response on the Premature Release of 69
System
6. Relevant Court Verdicts 87
7. The System of Premature Release of Prisoners in 100
Different States/Union Territories
8. Premature Release of Prisoners in Uttar Pradesh 139
9. Conclusions and Suggestions 164
Annexures
Case studies 179
International Response 183
(v)
Chapter - 1
Evolution of Punishment System in India

Emergence and changes in the Modern Prison System
With the advent of the British, the administrative structure in India began to
assume a new form. At rst very little alteration was made in the existing legal
system. It was probably impossible for the English at once to assume the duty of
administering criminal justice, but they could not help it long. In 1773, was passed
the Regulating Act which established the Supreme Court at Calcutta to exercise
“all civil, criminal, admiralty and ecclesiastical jurisdiction and indicated the
intention of the British Government to introduce English rules of law and English
superintendence of law and justice. About 1790, the punishment of mutilation
was forbidden by law in Bengal, and the criminal courts were directed to inict
imprisonment with hard labour in its stead. In 1833, the attention of the British
parliament was drawn to the “anomalous and sometimes conicting judicatures
by which laws were hitherto being administered”. An Indian law commission
was appointed to prepare a uniform code of legal rules. First the civil procedure
code, then the Indian penal code and almost immediately afterwards the Criminal
Procedure Code, all of which had long been in preparation, were enacted. A
uniform system of legal justice was initiated in India. The Indian Penal Code
dened each and every offence and prescribed punishment for it. Imprisonment
became the most conspicuous and most commonly used instrument of penal
treatment.
Correctional Aspect of Prisons in Criminal Justice System
Indian Commissions and Committees appointed

The emergence and changes in the modern prison system are the result of
different commissions appointed time to time. In 1835, Lord Macaulay arrived
in India, as a member of Indian Law Commission. He was of the opinion that
the best criminal code be of very little use to a community unless there be a good
machinery for the iniction of punishment. In his minute dated 14th Dec 1835,
he states“ Imprisonment is a punishment to which we must chiey trust. It will
probably be resorted to in 99 cases out of every hundred. It is therefore of the
greatest importance to establish such regulations as shall make imprisonment a
terror to wrongdoers and shall at the same time prevent it from being attended
by any circumstances shocking to humanity. Thus the deterrent philosophy for
the management of prisons in India was recommended. The suggestion of Lord
T.B. Macaulay to appoint committee for the purpose of collecting information
as to the state of the Indian Prisons, and of preparing an improved plan of
1
prison discipline was readily received by Sir C. Metcalfe, then acting Governor-
General and a committee was appointed to report upon the subject. The report
was presented in the early part of 1838. The committee handled the aspects of
housing of prisoners, discipline, health, diet, remunerative theory, rewards and
punishments, education, labour and recommended a series of suggestions. The
committee in its recommendations deliberately rejected “all reforming inuences
such as moral and religious teaching, education or any system of rewards for
good conduct and suggested the building of Central Prisons where the convicts
might be engaged not on manufactures which it condemned but in some dull,
monotonous, wearisome and uninteresting work”.
The difculties in implementing the suggestions of the committee were
summed up in the following extract from Lord Auckland’s resolution upon the
committee’s report, “Every reform of prison discipline is almost of necessity
attended at the outset with extraordinary expense. To change the common herding
of prisoners of all descriptions for careful classication, to substitute a strict and
useful industry for idleness or for a light and ill directed labour, to provide that the
life which is irksome shall not also be unhealthy, and that the congregation of the
vicious shall not be a school of vice, are all objects for the rst approach to which
buildings must be erected, machinery formed and establishments and checks
upon establishments contrived, and in the perfect attainment and maintenance of
which great disappointment has after every effort and expense in many countries
ensured. In no country it is likely that greater difculty will be experienced than
in this. For the mere locality of the prison, that which is healthy in one season may
become a pest house by a blast of fever or of cholera in another. For its form the
close yard which is adopted for classication and is not unwholesome in England
would be a sink of malaria in India. For food, for labour, and for consort, there
are habits and an inveteracy of prejudice and of feeling bearing upon health, and
almost upon life, opposing difculties to the just management of prisons such as
are not elsewhere to be encountered, and super-added to all this is the absence
of tting instruments for control and management, while it is principally upon
a perfect tact and judgment and an unwearying zeal that the success of every
scheme of discipline has been found to depend.”
Sir John Lawrence, the Governor of India reviewed the position in 1864 and
appointed the second prison commission to minimize the high death rates in
prison, and for considering other aspects of jail management. The committee of
1864 found that during the preceding ten years no less than 46,309 deaths had
occurred within walls of the Indian Prisons. The committee came to the conclusion
that the sickness and mortality may be considered as mainly attributable to (1)
Overcrowding (2) Bad ventilation (3) Bad drainage (4) Insufcient clothing (5)
Sleeping on the ground (6) deciency of personal cleanliness (7) Bad water (8)
Extraction of labour from unt persons and (9) Insufcient medical inspection.
2
The committee also considered the aspects of (1) Juvenile delinquency (2) Female
Prisoners (3) Dietary (4) Jail discipline (Superintendence, labour, rewards,
punishments, education) (5) Classication of Convicted prisoners (6) Habitual
Prisoners and recommended a series of suggestions in the prison system. Due
to implementations of the recommendations of the committee, the death rate in
prisons was considerably reduced.
In 1876 Lord Lytton appointed a third commission to make a general review
of the subject, and in particular to suggest means for introducing more uniform
regulations and for making short sentences more deterrent. The committee
reviewed the jail management generally and mostly concerned itself more with
the matters of detail prison work than with the general aims and principles of
administration. The plan adopted, as remarked by the Indian Jail Committee
1919-20, was “of embodying in the report a long account of discussions, the
arguments pro and con and the opinion even of the individual member, with the
result that actual conclusions arrived at were buried under the mass of previous
deliberations of the Indian Jail Committee.”
In the time of Lord Dufferin, in 1888, attention was again directed to the
diversity of practice, and two ofcers of experience were appointed to visit the
jails of different provinces, and to investigate on the spot questions regarding
health, discipline and general administration. They made an exhaustive inquiry,
and submitted their report in 1889, which dealt with prison discipline and
management in all its aspects. The report was a “business-like Report”, covering
nearly the whole eld of internal management of jails and laying down rules for
prison management. The committee recommended the separation of undertrial
prisoners and the classication of prisoners into casuals and habituals. Most of
the recommendations were incorporated in the Jail Manuals of various provinces.
The work of the committee was supplemented by the All India Committee
1892. It re-examined the whole prison administration in India and drew up
proposals on the subject of prison offences and punishment. The report of the
committee was accepted by the Government of India which passed the Prisons
Act, 1894. The Act xed nine hours labour a day for a criminal prisoner sentenced
to labour or employed on labour at his own desire. It further redenes what
constitutes prison offences and laid down punishments for the same. This Act
was largely based on deterrent principles and reected the contemporary English
public opinion on the subject. The legislatures took little pains to look into the
other side of the problem. They were concerned more with prison working
than with prison treatment and gave more consideration to prison offences and
punishments than to its effects. Surprisingly the same Prison Act of 1894, even
today, is in existence in the management of prisons.
The year 1897 marks a landmark in the history of prison changes in India.
In that year the Reformatory Schools Act was passed. The Act modied the prior
3
legislation on the subject, which had remained more or less a dead letter, and
directed the courts to send a “Youthful Offender” to a reformatory school instead
of a prison. The Act dened “Youthful Offender” as “any boy who has been
convicted of any offence punishable with transportation or imprisonment and
who at the time of such conviction was under the age of 15 years”.
Even though the different commissions appointed upto 1888-1889 suggested
certain changes in the prison system, the Indian prison system lagged behind
on the reformative side of prison work. It has failed to regard the prisoner as an
individual and has conceived of him rather as a unit in the jail administrative
machinery. It has lost sight of the effect which humanizing and civilizing
inuences might have on the mind of the individual prisoner and has focussed
its attention on his material well being, his diet, health and labour. Little attention
has been paid to the possibility of moral or intellectual improvement. Possibly
all the Indian Jail Committees upto 1888-89, were inuenced by the report of the
Indian Jail Committee 1838 which again inuenced by the contemporary ideas in
England where deterrent side of punishment appealed to the parliamentarians
of the day. To overcome these shortcomings in the prison system in India, the
fth committee was appointed in 1919. The Indian Jail Committee of 1919, gave
expression to the new ideas. The committee made an extensive tour of England,
USA, Scotland, Japan, Philippines, Hong Kong and Andamans (where Indian
political prisoners were detained) studied prison systems there, and submitted a
comprehensive report suggesting far-reaching changes in the various aspects of
prison system. The report of the committee is a huge piece of work. The committee
made 584 recommendations (some of which have not been implemented even
today in most of the Indian Jails).
The publication of the report gave an immediate and great impetus of
prison reforms throughout India. The Government of India took its strictures
and recommendations seriously to heart and issued instructions to all local
governments to study the report and implement the suggestions mentioned
therein. Not only were the prison departments affected but penal reform also
received a great llip. The enactment of the Brostal Act, the Children’s and
Probation Act were undoubtedly the direct or indirect result of the general interest
aroused by the report. The report, it may be remarked, “ laid the foundation stone
of modern prison system in India”.
Unfortunately the changes in the prison system in India received a sudden
set-back due to the constitutional changes brought about by the Government
of India Act, 1919. The enforcement of this Act effected the transfer of the jail
department from the control of the Government of India to that of the provincial
government. Prisons were placed in the reserved list under the dyarchical set-up
of the province and changes in the prison system received a set-back.
4
Government considered that the reformation of the prisoner is of paramount

importance in jail administration and is of opinion that the existing provisions
of laws and rules in respect of prisoner should be revised so as to achieve this
object in the best manner. Crime is an anti-social act and that it is the task of
prison administration so to deal with the criminal that he and others may be
deterred from the commission of such acts, in future the commission of further
crime…” Even though we aim at reformation we are still under the shadow of
deterrent therapy. Another noteworthy factor is the committees did not accept
the most modern theory in the science of criminology. We must discard all our
notions about the criminal being considered a criminal at all. An offender must be
considered a victim of social circumstances, a person requiring treatment rather
than punishment. The 1948 committee opined with importance of criminology
but not accepted as far they should be. Once the principle “a criminal is a victim
of social circumstances” is accepted by the committee, the responsibility of such
social circumstances will naturally be required to be shouldered by the ruling
group, and as the member of the committee and thereby the ruling group, were
not prepared to accept this responsibility, the modern theory in criminology was
possibly not accepted by the committee.
The Government of India has taken some interest in the matter of changes in
the prison system. In 1951 it requested the Technical Assistance Administration
of the United Nations to send an expert for imparting a training course to the
selected jail ofcers and to suggest progressive programmes for the scientic care
and treatment of offenders. Dr W.C. Reckless was sent as an UN expert who went
round the country and submitted a report on prison administration in India and
conducted a six months training programme for jail ofcials. Dr. Reckless made
a number of recommendations the chief among which were regarding the setting
up of a central bureau of correctional services at Delhi and revising the jail manual
in his report—“Jail administration in India”.
In pursuance of the recommendations of Dr. W.C. Reckless and All India
Conference of Inspectors General, the Government of India appointed an All
India Jail Manual Committee in 1957 to prepare an All India Skeleton Jail Manual,
to examine the Prisons Act and other Laws and make proposals for changes to
be adopted uniformly throughout the state. The committee submitted its report
in 1959. In pursuance of the recommendations of the jail manual committee, the
Government of India set up a Central Bureau of Correctional Services in 1961. The
main functions of the bureau was to coordinate and develop a uniform policy to
standardize the collection of statistics on a national basis, to exchange information
with foreign governments and the UN agencies and to promote research, training
and studies and surveys in the eld of prevention of crime and treatment of
offences.
Unfortunately the spirit and enthusiasm with which the subject of prison
5
reforms was taken up by various governments did not last long. The prisoners
could now avail of furlough and parole. They were granted wages, even though
nominal, for the work done by them. The introduction of panchayat system led
to improvement in the living conditions of prisoners. One of the major prison
reforms introduced and which, we feel, is still an important modality of treatment
of prisoners, was the development of open prisons serving as a half way house for
long term prisoners for their transition from prison to open society. A jail ofcers
training school was set up in at Pune in 1955.
The changing circumstances on the socio-economic scene of the country after
Independence did not allow much to be done on a subject like prisons. The policy
of the British Raj of running prisons in as cheap a manner as possible continued
as a hangover even after the advent of freedom. The prisons always received
the lowest priority in the state budgets. On each spell of nancial stringency,
the prisons were the rst casualty in their efforts to bring about an economic
transformation in the country. It somehow crept into the minds of the planners
and administrators that prisons were a non productive department. People
entrusted with the task of planning for socio-economic change could never
visualize that prevention of crime and treatment of offenders was an integral
part of the bigger problem of social development and that, therefore, it deserves
proper governmental attention, both administrative and nancial. It sometimes
began to appear that the appointment of prison reform committees was being
used as a palliative for agitated public opinion for a temporary period and when
reports and recommendations were received, they were shelved in the name of
nancial stringency.
In 1972, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India appointed a
working group on prisons which presented its report in1973. The Central Bureau
of Correctional Services functioned as a base, offering all data and background
and all administrative and technical services to the working group in drafting and
nalizing its report. The working group on prisons brought out in its report the
need for a national policy on prisons. It suggested that government should make
effective use of alternatives to imprisonment as a measure of sentencing policy.
The working group emphasized that development of prisons and correctional
administration should no longer remain divorced from the national development
process and the prison administration should be treated as an integral part of the
social defense components of national planning process.
In 1964 the Central Bureau of Correctional Services was transferred from
the MHA to the newly created Department of Social Security, now known as
the Ministry of Social Welfare. In 1975, the Bureau was reorganized into the
National Institute of Social Defense. The scheme for modernization of prisons
and improvement in the living conditions of prisoners initiated by the Ministry of
Home Affairs (MHA) during 1977-79 was indicative of a growing awareness for
6
providing a thrust towards the development of prisons in keeping with certain

minimum norms. The MHA set up the committee on jail reforms on July 25,
1980 under the chairmanship of Justice A.N. Mulla and 11 other members. This
committee submitted its report in 1982-83 and it was a landmark in the process of
prison reforms in India.
Development of Prison Policies in India

1. In 1835 Lord Macaulay appointed a Prison Discipline Committee and that
started working on 2nd January, 1836. In 1838, committee submitted their
report. The committee recommended more rigorous treatment of prisoners
and rejected all notions of reforming criminals lodged in the prison.
2. Sir John Lawrence, again examined the conditions of India Prisons in 1864
and this second commission of enquiry also did not dwell upon the concept
of reformation and welfare of prisoners. However, the commission made
some specic recommendations in respect of accommodation, diet, clothing,
bedding, medical care of prisoners only to the extent that they were incidental
to discipline and management of prisons and prisoners.
3. A conference of experts was held in 1877 to inquire into the prison
administration in detail. The conference resolved that the Prison Law should
be enacted which could secure uniformity of system. A draft prison bill was
actually prepared but nally postponed due to unfavourable circumstances.
4. The fourth Jail Commission was appointed by Lord Dufferin in 1888 to
inquire into the prison administration and the outcome was the Prison Act,
1894.
5. In 1919-20 All India Jail Committee was the major landmark in the history
of Prison reforms in India and is appropriately called the corner stone of
modern prison reforms in the country. For the rst time, in the history of
prison administration, reformation and rehabilitation of offenders were
identied as one of the objectives of prison administration.
6. The Constitutional changes brought about by the Government of India Act
of 1935, which resulted the transfer of the subject of prisons in the control
of provincial governments, further reduced the possibilities of uniform
implementation of the recommendations of the Indian Jails Committee 1919-
20 in the country.
7. However, the period 1937-47 was important in the history of Indian prisons
because states like West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh
etc. apart from appointment of some committees and enactment of some Acts
the rst Jail Training School in India was established at Lucknow in 1940.
8. Dr. W.C. Reckless, a United Nations expert on Correctional Work visited
India during 1951-52 to study prison administration in the country. In his
report he emphasized on the Corrections.
7
9. In 1957 All India Jail Manual Committee appointed.

10. In 1961 Central Bureau of Correctional Services was set up and in 1971
renamed as National Institute of Social Defence.
11. In 1972, the Ministry of Home Affairs appointed a Working Group on Prisons.
12. In 1978, the seventh Finance Commission dealt with the nancial aspects of
prison administration. A norm of Rs.3 per head for diet and Rs.1 per prisoner
for other items like medicine, clothing etc. per day was set up.
13. The Government of India convened a Conference of Chief Secretaries of all
the States and Union Territories on April 9, 1979. The recommendations
made were like development of education, training and work in prisons,
setting state board of visitors etc.
14. All India Committee on Jail Reforms under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice
A.N. Mulla was constituted in 1980 and it submitted its report in 1983. A total
658 recommendations were made regarding each and every aspect of Prison
including the reformation and rehabilitation of Prisoners and also to form
National Policy on Prisons.
The role of Bureau of Police Research and Development, Ministry of Home
Affairs is remarkable and the Bureau is organizing so many training programmes
and research projects countrywide. The Bureau also prepared Model Jail Manual
and Draft National Policy on Prison Reforms and Correctional Administration in
2007.
8
Chapter -2
Punishment Vs Reformation and Rehabilitation
What is a crime? It is never easy to precisely dene a legal concept. Jurists

dene legal concepts differently. The term crime also has had its share of
controversies connected with the attempts to dene. According to Salmond ‘a
wrong regarded as the subject matter of criminal proceedings is termed a criminal
wrong or a crime’ but this denition is mainly what may be called a procedural
denition and does not serve the very purpose of a denition. It leaves much to
be explained. The observation of Blackstone that ‘wrongs are divisible into two
sorts or species, private wrongs and public wrongs’. The former are infringement
or privation of the private or civil rights belonging to individuals, considered as
individuals, and are thereupon frequently termed civil injuries; the latter are a
breach and violation of public rights and duties which affect the whole community
considered as a community; and are distinguished by harsher appellation of
crimes, and misdemeanors, is equally misleading and vague. Crime may not
always be public wrongs. Kenny’s denition of crime as ‘wrongs whose sanction
is punitive, and is in no way remissible by any private person but is remissible
by the Crown alone if remissible at all’ is again not only procedural but also is
incomplete insofar as it leaves out of its purview the offences compoundable by
the person who has been injured even without any interference by the Crown or
State. The penal laws of all civilized nations concede that where the violation,
infringement or injury is not of a grave character and immediately affects only
an individual, though as a member of the community, the individual can waive it
and the State would not in that event intervene and in this manner concedes the
right of the injured person to compound the injury or wrong committed.
Crimes have been described to be social injuries by Taft, who further
maintains that the crimes vary according to the social values of the times and as
such are subjective concepts. They have observed that 'crime' is but one form of
social injury. Injuries are dened in terms of the values cherished in any society:
in nearly all societies life and property are valued; to steal and to kill are therefore
rated as injuries. Being thus dened by group opinions injuries are subjective
concepts. They vary at different periods in any changing society, and they vary
between societies. Injuries are thus relative as well as subjective concepts. This
description of crimes may meet the requirements of a sociologist but not that
of a legalist. The essential element of the command of political superior and the
penalty are lacking in this description. The concept of law as a command of a
political superior with power to enforce it is more pronounced in the context
of criminal law and crimes, insofar as nothing is an offence which has not been
9
so declared and laid down by law. Social injuries may be termed as sins in the
context of religious texts or immoral conduct in the eyes of moralists, but neither
a sin, nor immoral conduct, nor anti-social behaviour, can be termed a crime
until it has been so declared by law. Thus a social injury may be sinful, immoral
or contrary to public good but not essentially a crime. According to Sutherland,
'a combination of two abstract criteria is generally regarded by legal scholars as
necessary to dene crime, namely: legal description of an act as socially injurious,
and legal provision of penalty for the act, and both these requirements are the
product of positive law. It would not be inappropriate to say that crimes are
merely 'acts forbidden by the law under pain of punishment.
Be that as it may, it is not the purpose of our discussion to coin yet another
denition of crime; rather, the idea is to convey the real import of the term 'crime'.
In the eye of the law a crime is a wrongful act or omission which has been made
punishable in criminal proceedings as a matter of public policy by law and is
intended to secure peace, security and harmony by protecting the person and
property of the members of the community. Crime may not be purely a legal
problem, rather may as much be a social and economic problem in view of its
consequences and therefore is considered to be a wrong against the State and
society; nonetheless the essential elements of a crime are that it is conduct
forbidden by law laid down by the State and is made punishable by the law Nulla
poena sine lege has now come to be accepted as the most important element of
criminal law. It implies that no person may be punished except in pursuance of a
statute which prescribes a penalty and therefore strictly speaking no conduct may
be held criminal unless it is precisely declared so by criminal law.
Crime is what criminal law has so declared.
Before making any policy for the criminal justice system the points that need
to be taken into consideration are:
1. Crime has a legal as well as sociological denition. Legally, crime is to act
against law. Sociologically, crimes are conducts harmful to the society.
2. Study of crime must be done scientically and objectively with the use of
empirical data and grounded theory.
3. Crime can only be completely understood and effectively dealt with in
cultural context. How criminals, victims and society perceived and received
crime depends on cultural meaning assigned and feelings evoked.
4. Criminals are not born evil but a product of their social environment. People
are born into pre-existing roles and relationships which affect their outlook
and determine their action.
5. Prisons should not be an institution of punishment, but a place to reform
offenders.
10
6. Prisoners should be treated individually. Collective treatment and punishment

of prisoners with uniform rule, identical policy and xed regulation will not
be effective in reforming prisoners, who suffer from different personalities,
labour under disparate life circumstances, and offend in unique situations.
7. Prisons should be staffed by social workers schooled in treatment of sick
people and not prison guards specialized in the punishment of offenders.
The aim of the criminal justice administration is the effective reduction of
crime and protection of society. The fourth component of the criminal justice
system i.e. prison administration has to play a vital role in this regard. As many
prison ofcials often say that “Prison is a place where all types of criminals are
kept altogether. One criminal who is not convicted creates a lot of problem for the
society so think about the condition where all such criminals are living together.”
There are dual goals of Rehabilitative framework
1. Offender Risk Management
2. Increase Offender Capabilities
Initially the strategy for the punishment system in primitive society was
retribution and deterrence and the focus was on the elimination of wrong doers.
Then in 19th century, in the rst half the approach was preventive (imprisonment)
and later on the approach has shifted towards reformation, rehabilitation and
community based treatment programmes.
With the changing perception towards prisoners, prison is no longer
regarded only as place for punishment. Instead, they are now being considered
as reformatories. As a result in some states the name of the prison department
changed and renamed as Department of Corrections. Greater attention is being
given to ameliorate the conditions in jails so that it has a healthy impact on
prisoners and a positive attitude can be developed among prisoners.
In the era of reformation and rehabilitation the role of prisons has changed
and prisons are now the treatment centers and place of correction. The education,
training and experience of the prison population will determine the quality of
the reformative programmes. Rehabilitation planning of prisoners is the process
of developing and determining objectives, policies and programmes that will
develop and utilize the skills of the prisoners so as to achieve economic and other
goals. In other terms, the goal of the reformation and rehabilitation schemes is to
reintegrate the prisoner in society after release. However excellent may be the state
of technology in an organization, unless suitable climate is created by pursuing
and implementing reformation and reintegration policies and plans in which the
prisoner is motivated to give its best to the society, the objectives and plans of the
organization can not be achieved. The goals of the rehabilitation and reformation
can be categorized into different categories like intermediate and ultimate goal,
specic and general, social and individual, dynamic and static, long term and
11
short term goals. The correctional institutions are less willing to underwrite the
cost of providing decent conditions and rehabilitative programmes because, in
fact, the after care schemes are not running properly and there is also absolutely
no follow up of the conditions of the prisoners who released from prison. The State
is not bothered about their employment, social tie up, shelter etc. The nancial
support and other assistance needed by the correctional institutions for after care
programmes are denied. Commitment to prison would become a benecial act
for the offender only at helping him to a better future life. The “Sick Model” of
the management of offenders has never been tested in correctional elds. Thus
there is little hard evidence either for or against its usefulness in rehabilitating
offenders.
Research in the problem of crime in India has not yet made sufcient advance.
The immediate task is to change or modify existing policies and programmes in
order to adjust them to new objectives which seek to protect the interest of society
and achieve a total rehabilitation of the offender. Crime is stimulated by conditions
prevailing in society and it is due to personal and psychological factors. Economic
conditions have always been a factor contributing to crime. Intensive surveys to
study the causes, nature and extent of crime should be undertaken by research
organisations, universities and other private agencies. The treatment of the crime,
problem is intimately related to the nature of legislation, and the approach of the
judiciary to crime. So far there has been no basic approach towards the various
problems of correctional administration, but a number of useful steps have been
recently taken by States and there is growing interest in the reform of penal
administration.
The problem of correctional administration has to be dealt within three
stages : the pre-committal stage ; the administration of correctional institutions;
and probation and after-care. The principle that no person should be considered
an offender till he is proved guilty should govern the treatment of accused and
under-trial persons. The administration of police lock-ups and jails needs to be
reviewed in the interest of the proper treatment of the inmates of the lock-ups.
Special care must be taken when rst offenders are committed to jails, so that no
serious psychological harm is done to them. The administration of correctional
institutions is governed by jail manuals. A recent conference of State Inspectors-
General of Prisons has proposed the appointment of a committee to suggest the
basis on which jail manuals may be revised to suit the new objectives, methods
and programmes of correctional institutions, remove the inexibility of rules, and
permit greater freedom to the authorities on the spot to interpret sympathetically
the rules so as to serve the objects of rehabilitation. Changes in the jail manuals
will naturally require a revision of the Prison and Prisoners' Act which would
need to be modied to meet changes in correctional administration.
The need to utilise prisons as agencies for the rehabilitation of prisoners is
generally accepted. Modern principles of penology require that each prisoner is
12
to be dealt with as an individual, and corrective handling should be so devised as

to be in consonance with his abilities, aptitudes, back-ground and also with the
paramount purpose of enabling him to earn his living honestly as a law-abiding
member of society. While this must be the ideal and all plans must be directed
to this end, the possibility of utilising the manpower resources represented by
prisoners on projects of socially constructive character should be fully explored.
Central prisons and district jails should receive the assistance of Departments
such as those concerned with industries, agriculture and irrigation, so that
the maximum advantage can be taken of the labour available in correctional
institutions. A probation and after-care service is likely to minimise the cost of
maintenance, as prisoners will not be called upon to serve long sentences during
which they will be maintained by State Governments. As life in prison has to be
organised so that the inmates live as a community and as the method of case work
is to be increasingly used to deal with individual cases in correctional institutions,
welfare ofcers should be progressively employed in central prisons and rst
grade district jails. Ofcials of correctional institutions should be given special
training both before employment and during service.
Prisons and jails may need to be reconditioned so as to provide arrangements
to suit different classes of prisoners. Separate correctional institutions may be
provided for female convicts. It should also be possible to develop open and close
farm workshop prisons, agricultural colonies, and work camps at important work
projects. The provision for Borstals, both open and closed, will also need to be
expanded. It will be necessary to bring about greater uniformity in legislation
applicable to rst offenders and others charged more than once for minor offences.
The appointment of probation ofcers and the release of prisoners on parole should
remove a great deal of congestion from correctional institutions, reduce the cost of
prison administration, and enable many prisoners to live as normal citizens after
they have served their sentences. The work of private agencies like prisoners'
aid societies and district probation and after-care associations has suffered on
account of limited resources. It is desirable to entrust after-care work to probation
ofcers, and a beginning may be made by organising after- care departments in
central prisons and rst grade district jails to deal with problems relating to work
and employment, housing, health and family relationship. New developments
in the administration and programmes of correctional institutions require the
guidance and advice of experienced personnel working together in a central
organisation. Such an organisation can assist programmes in the States, undertake
experimental work and pilot projects, and function as a centre of information and
publicity on all matters relating to correctional administration. Recognising the
need for such a central organisation, the recent conference of Inspectors-General
of Prisons recommended that a National Bureau of Correctional Institutions may
be established in the Ministry of Home Affairs.
13
Our practice of punishment seems to require justication. It involves society

deliberately inicting suffering on some of its members. When private individuals
steal, or kidnap, or kill, we generally say this is wrong; but when a criminal is
ned, imprisoned, or executed we deem it quite alright. Though most people
would endorse the punishment of criminals if asked, it is likely that they have not
seriously considered the possibility that the amount of suffering inicted counts
so heavily against the practice that it is in fact wrong. A similar phenomenon
can be observed in people's attitudes towards war and other State undertakings:
perhaps because no one individual has to 'do the dirty work' we fail to apply
our normal strict standards. Or perhaps we are felt to be pushed into both these
practices out of necessity, leaving us no choice. They cannot often express their
reasons. Normally, you nd several different threads of thinking tied together. Of
course, it is perfectly sensible to feel that several of the traditionally self-sufcient
philosophical justications of punishment may be necessary. But we should
be wary of the common mistake of assuming that since punishment 'must' be
justied, any rationalisation that can be offered must be part of the truth. Our
prisons, nes, and (in some places) electric chairs may not be justied at all, and
we should subject all proposed rationales to critical scrutiny.
A traditional notion, revived in the 1970s, is that criminals should be punished
because they deserve it. The central concept here is the familiar one of desert,
central to notions of justice and 'just deserts'. But what does it mean to say that
prison sentences and the like are deserved, and why are they?
The question of appropriate penalties aside, retributivist theories - unlike
many others - tend to t quite well with the law as it stands. Breaking the law
can be seen as taking advantage where others choose not to, and as this is wrong
in itself, quite aside from any external consequences, it deserves to be punished.
The law is often seen as a contract which all of society signs. When someone
makes a contract, we say they agree to incur some penalty if they go back on
it. Determinism is another potential problem for retributivism. This is a long-
standing area of contention, with great philosophers on both sides, but it is fair to
say that there are strong arguments for it.
Deterrence is a popular, and distinctly consequentialist, theory. Though we
can't undo the original crime, through punishing it we can hope to deter future
ones, and at least do some good, as well as of course keeping criminals off the
streets. Now, if the assumption that punishment does deter is false, this falls at the
rst hurdle. The claim that people, especially those who go to prison, learn that
"crime doesn't pay" does seem to have some evidential backing, with criminals
committing fewer crimes (or at least getting caught less!) as time goes on. Bank
robbers used to search each other for lethal weapons before each job - a prudent
measure, given the hefty penalties they could have received. But many crimes are
committed in moments of passion, when it is crazy to commit them from a purely
14
prudential perspective. Deterrence cannot justify punishments here, or indeed

for low-prole crimes no one ever hears about: as such, it is far from justifying
ordinary criminal justice. However, even if deterrence did make all crimes less
attractive, this might not be the best way in which to do so. It appeals purely to
people's self-interest, and gives criminals no reason not to commit a crime if they
can be sure they won't get caught, as a reform-based system might.
Both reformative and deterrence theories are open to a still more powerful
objection: since they treat punishment as a way of reducing crime, without any
reference to desert, they justify victimising the innocent, if this will do the job. It
is no use pointing out that these are theories of punishment, which by denition
applies only to the guilty. Since they make no reference to desert, by their own
logic they provide no reason why victimisation is intrinsically wrong.
In its current form, justice isn't justied. This shouldn't be surprising: most
attempts to explain pre-existing instincts and institutions - as opposed to working
out with an open mind what can be justied - will lead to a similar conclusion.
The ideas of retribution and desert are inextricable from the kind of punishment
we have today, but they are fatally undermined by determinism and the fact that
they boil down to inicting suffering to satisfy the instinct of revenge. But a more
enlightened version of justice and punishment, involving deterrence, reform and
a concern for what kind of society we want, could be justied.
15
Chapter – 3
Challenges before the Premature Release of the

Prisoners System
The mechanism of premature release of prisoners in India is somewhat
akin to what is known as ‘Parole’ in the internationally accepted sense. The
mechanism everywhere outlines a procedure whereby an inmate of a prison who
is considered suitable may be released at a time considered appropriate by prison
authorities before the expiry of his/her sentence. In such a release procedure the
inmate is allowed to serve the balance of his/her sentence at large, subject to
stated conditions under the supervision and subject to return to prison if he/she
fails to comply with the conditions governing his/her release.
Stated descriptively, this procedure has the following characteristics:
i. It is a form of conditional release granted after a prisoner has served a portion
of his sentence in penal or correctional institution;
ii. It is a status of the offender to remain under the custody, control and
supervision of some institution, agency, or correctional authority approved
by the State on the condition that the prisoner so released shall maintain
good behaviour until the nal discharge is granted.
iii. It is an opportunity provided to the prisoner as a step in correctional process
intended to accelerate the process of rehabilitation and resettlement in the
community;
iv. It is a procedure distinct in essence from mandatory release, conditional
pardon or discharge.
In essence, premature release of prisoners is a device of bringing such offenders
back to the community in whose case the full dose of prison incarceration is not
needed. Philosophically, it stresses the idea that to hold in connement those who
are long before ready to assume their place in free society can be dangerously
destructive to the offender and needlessly expensive to the community. Therefore,
the society has a real stake in knowing how certain prisoners could be released
in the safest and most protable manner. Release of prisoners prematurely is a
concession or privilege extended by the State and the prisoner cannot claim it
as a matter of right. It is based on reformative philosophy of punishment which
advocates that once the prisoner has been absolved of his criminal tendencies
through correctional treatment and the chances of his reoffending are minimal,
conning him in prison is futile.
As the term ‘parole’ is not used in India in an internationally accepted sense,
here it means a temporary release of prisoners akin to what is ‘furlough’, ‘ticket
16
Challenges before the Premature Release of the Prisoners System
of leave’ or ‘emergency release’. The objective of ‘parole’, as internationally

understood is realized in our country through the review of sentences undertaken
in accordance with the special enactments, rules or order formulated by State
governments. Therefore it is taken as a form of ‘premature release’ which in
certain States (like U.P.) is also known as ‘prisoners release on probation’. These
States have incorporated the procedure for premature release in their special laws
while others have incorporated the same in their Jail Manuals.
The problems in the pre-release mechanism being followed in different
States arise for want of a uniform standard legislation on the subject. As a
consequence, the policies, procedures and practices vary from state to state.
Condition of eligibility, constitution of recommendatory boards, processing of
paper and procedure of obtaining bonds differ from one State to another. There is
also a lot of confusion about the terminology used to denote review of sentences
for premature release. The procedure being followed in number of States is so
cumbersome which often deprives suitable prisoners from availing this facility.
The virtual non existence of any good research material about the system and
its working in different States has rendered the system into a kind of mystery.
For want of any comprehensive inquiry into the empirical reality of the system,
the systemic defects and drawback of premature release are not fully known, let
alone appreciated and eradicated. Therefore the present study is both timely and
opportune in as much as it attempts to provide a critical overview of the system
for purpose of reform.
As stated above, there is, as yet, no comprehensive study on the premature
release mechanism being followed in different States, which can be taken as a
reliable roadmap for revamping /restructuring the whole System in a manner
appropriate for effectively redressing the defects and deciencies of the system,
as it functions in reality, regardless of its rhetorical justication of equity, fairness,
impartiality, efciency and justiciability. Sundry articles that have appeared in
the criminological journals of the country have not unravelled the operational
reality of the system, let alone explain why the system is more often criticized
as the ‘corrupt one’ with heavy overtones of political considerations playing the
dominant role. Which is why a thorough probe into the system is necessary more
particularly in view of what many prison reform Commissions/Committees have
commented with certain degree of anguish.
True, that there is little or no empirical research on the subject, there is,
however, considerable critical material available in various reports of the prison
reform commissions and committees beginning with Indian Jail Committee
Report of 1919-20.
A thorough review of this material reveals.
17
1. The Indian penal system began with the principle that an offender sentenced
to imprisonment must serve his/her period in full before he/she could be
released. There was no way of shortening the term except through pardon by
an executive authority in that behalf.
2. As modern principles of prison treatment began to take shape in the early
twentieth century, the necessity for legal devices to effect premature release
of certain prisoners about whom it could with some certainty be predicted
that they had reached a stage at which they could be released with benet to
themselves and with sense of security and safety to the society.
3. The ball was set rolling by the Indian Jail Committee (1919-20) which
suggested that the sentence of every long-term prisoner would be brought
under revision as soon as he/she has served half of the period of sentence
awarded by the court in the case of non-habitual convicts, and two-thirds
of that period in the case of habitual convicts, provided in both cases that
the remission is earned, but not remission granted in celebration of public
events, should be included in calculating the period undergone, and
provided also that no sentence should come up for revision until a period of
two and a half years, including the remission, has been served. For purposes
of granting premature release the Committee recommended that there
should be constituted in each province a revising board. The Committee also
recommended the appointment of Parole ofcers who should be attached to
prisons and exercise supervision over prisoners released on parole.
4. Some years later, several State-level Prison Reform Commissions and
Committees dwelt at length on the procedural aspects and the advantages of
conditional release of prisoners, while at the same time voicing the need for
a liberal attitude on the subject.
5. The subject was revisited by the All India Jail Manual Committee (1957-59)
which had laid guidelines for the review of sentences with regard to the
machinery for the review, the criteria for review and the procedure to be
followed by the Review/Advisory Boards.
6. The Working Group on Prisons (1972-73) again reviewed the system of
premature releases and opined that the general policy and procedure for the
review of sentences should be simplied and made uniform in all States and
Union Territories.
7. The Central Advisory Board on Correctional Services in its very rst meeting
held in March 1970 stressed the need for evolving model rules to govern
premature release of prisoners. The Board unanimously agreed that uniform
procedure and terminology for premature release may be adopted in the
country. As the State Acts and Rules regarding premature release create a lot
of confusion about the meaning of the term ‘parole’, the Board recommended
the adoption of the term ‘parole’ in its international usage for the premature
18
release of prisoners.
8. The Director, National Institute of Social Defence, in his capacity of Prison
Advisor to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India prepared a draft
of the Prisoners’ Release on Parole Bill to serve as a blueprint for enacting
a standard legislation. The Bill was discussed in the Seventh Meeting of
the Central Advisory Board on Correctional Services on March 20, 1976.
However, no further action could be taken in this regard.
9. The subject received considerable attention by All-India Committee on Jail
Reforms (1980-83) which vehemently criticized the inclusion of section 433 A
to the Criminal Procedure Code, apart from commenting on the defects and
deciencies of the system.
10. The NHRC since its establishment has been receiving complaints from and
on behalf of convicts undergoing life imprisonment about non-consideration
of their cases for premature release even after they have undergone long
periods of sentence ranging from 10 to 20 years with or without remissions.
Pursuant to the information received and closer study of the issues involved
in this important aspect impinging upon the human rights of a large number
of convicts undergoing life imprisonment in the prisons throughout the
length and breadth of the country, the NHRC more recently has made the
recommendations to evolve a uniform system of premature release, which
could be followed in all States.
The Present Position

The present position of the system of premature release of prisoners is as
under:
1. Article 72 of the Constitution of India empowers the President to grant
pardons, reprieves, respites or remission of punishment, or to suspend, remit
or commute the sentence of any person in certain cases.
2. Article 161 of the Constitution species the powers of the Governor to grant
pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit
or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any
law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 under section 432 provides that when
any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate
Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions
which the person concerned accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence
or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been
sentenced.
4. Certain States like Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh have
special legislations on the subject. The legislations are titled as 'The Punjab
(now Punjab and Haryana). ‘Good Conduct Prisoners’ Probational Release
19
Act', 1926, The Madhya Pradesh Prisoners’ Release on Probation Act’, 1958,
and the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners’ Release on Probation Act, 1938. Premature
release of prisoners in these States are effected in the case of those prisoners in
whose case it appears to the State Governments that the prisoners concerned
are likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceful life. All such prisoners
may be released on licence on the condition that they be placed under the
supervision or authority of a Government Ofcer, Probation Ofcer, or a
person willing and approved for the purpose by the State Government, or
such secular institution or such society which may be willing to undertake
the job and be also recognized by the State Government. The licence granted
remains in force until the date on which the prisoner released would have
been discharged had he not been released on licence. The period served by
the licencee is reckoned as part of the period of imprisonment to which he was
sentenced. The licence may contain such conditions as the State Government
deem t. In the event of breach of conditions the licence may be revoked with
reasons recorded in writing and with giving an opportunity to the licensee
to represent his case before the concerned ofcials. The prisoners eligible
for release on licence are generally those who have served one-third of their
sentence of imprisonment or a total period of ve years with remissions,
or whichever is less. The following classes of offenders are not eligible for
conditional release under these Acts; (a) Persons who have been convicted
for offences under the following Acts or provisions thereof Chapters V-A, VI
and VII and Sections 216A, 224 and 225 (if it is a case of escape from jail) 231,
232, 302, 303, 311, 328, 364, 367, 377, 382, 386 and 389, 392 to 402, 413, 455, 458
to 460 and 489A of the Indian Penal Code, (b) those whose licence has been
previously revoked on account of breach of conditions of the licence; (c) those
whose application for release has on a previous occasion been rejected by the
State Government, and (d) those who have been sentenced to a period of one
year or less under any section of the Indian Penal Code or under any other
Act.
5. In other States where no such special enactments exist the rules and
procedures for the premature release of prisoners are contained in the State
Prison Manuals. The rules and procedures governing such release are at
variance in different states though, there still appears a certain amount of
commonality. For example, all State Prison Manuals permit the premature
release of prisoners of the following type: (a) Convicts suffering from a
disease which is likely to prove fatal if the convict remains in prison, but
from which there is a reasonable chance of recovery if he is released, subject
to the satisfaction of certain conditions; (b) aged and inrm convicts who
are permanently incapacitated from the commission of further crimes of
nature for which he has been convicted; (c) convicts approaching death or are
likely to die soon; (d) life-convicts and other convicts sentenced to more than
20
fourteen years' imprisonment; and (e) other long-term convicts who have
served two-third or half of their sentences including remission and have
remained in prison for not less than two to three years.
6. The earlier policy of premature release of prisoners whose death sentence
had been commuted into life-imprisonment has been changed with the
insertion of Section 433 A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Now all
such convicts cannot be released unless they have served at least 14 years of
actual imprisonment.
The Continuing Criticism of the System

The system of premature release of prisoners has been subjected to a variety
of criticisms, ranging from procedural complexity to rampant corruption and
favourtism in the release of prisoners with political clout. The most common
complaint is that the system is like a hodge-podge lacking in rationality and
clear-cut statutory standards. In absence of any nationally applicable uniform
law on the subject the system operates under such complex and time-consuming
procedures which cause delay and even denial of the facility in large number of
the cases of prisoners who can be released prematurely without apprehending
much trouble from them in the post-release dispensation. Further, the critics
of the system say that in the name of being an administrative mechanism, the
system operates under the cloak of secrecy favouring the politically connected
and unfavouring the deserving ones.
The Main Charges Against the System

From the barrage of the criticism, the following charges are more frequently
heard:
(1) Differential and Class-based Application
The benets of the system, it is generally alleged, are not distributed on the
basis of objectivity, fair-play and justice. The system is heavily weighed in favour
of those privileged prisoners who have the resources to manipulate the system to
their best advantage. The poor prisoners with no signicant political connections
are seldom beneted, however deserving their cases may be.
(2) Capricious Decision-making
The decision-making process is characterized by sloppy, swift, political,
parsimonious and corrupt administrative means. The review board meetings take
decisions in a hurry and cases are disposed of in a highly routine and mechanized
manner.
(3) The System is Ridden with Unfair Practices

The system, it is alleged, is so much replete with unfair practices that many
21
prisoners have legitimate grievances. On paper the system seems to be humane,

but in practice it is hamstrung by aws that cripple its basic premises.
(4) Defective Selection Process
The selection procedure often turns out to be inuenced by extraneous
considerations in clear disregard to certain agreed principles and purposes. As
such decisions often turn out to be arbitrary, unfair and correctionally indefensible.
(5) Too Few Prisoners are released
The number of prematurely released prisoners is small, leaving many
deserving prisoners to rot in prison, adding to overcrowding in prisons.
(6) Denial of the Due Process of Law
For many ordinary prisoners the working of the revising boards is shrouded
in mystery. The denial of the release is not explained to the prisoner. The silence
of the Boards compound the cynicism of prisoners and their hostility to prison
authorities.
(7) Questionable Criteria of Selection
Methods determining premature release system are most often loose and
inconsistent. Mistakes in the assessment of prisoners’ readiness of premature
release are too common and too frequent.
(8) Poor Public Perception
Premature release of prisoners is being viewed by the public as a source
of scandal because many a time dangerous offenders are released. Public’s
opposition is, therefore, based on feeling that the premature release of certain
prisoners is in fact a form of favouritism and leniency.
(9) Ill-equipped Revising Boards
Members of the revising boards are often ill-equipped for a highly specialized
task of deciding when an inmate can be released without a substantial risk to the
community.
22
The System of Premature Release of Prisoners in India
Chapter – 4
The System of Premature Release of Prisoners

in India
As already explained in Chapter-3, the aim of premature release is a
humanitarian response to the problem of such prisoners who have had enough of
their deserts and who could safely be withdrawn from the prison world in order
to turn a new leaf in life. It is indeed an opportunity for such prisoners who do
not have to be detained further in public interest and in whose case continued
incarceration of longer duration will prove to be detrimental in readjusting to
conditions in free society to which they will eventually return some day. Viewed
in this sense, the system of premature release is based on the principle that no
offender should be kept in prison any longer than what is necessary for teaching
him a lesson.
The system stands in conformity with the penological progressivism being
espoused by the Supreme Court and State High Courts in several of their
landmark judgements on issues pertaining to reformative content of punishment.
We are tempted to reproduce here some of the observations of the apex Court as
well as of some High Courts, as contained in their verdicts that dealt with issues
of remission, pardon, and premature, and as such are relevant in explaining the
aims and objects of premature release, the central subject of the study at hand.
In Rakesh Kaushik Vs. Delhi Administration (1985) the Supreme Court
succinctly underscored the reformative content of punishment. It said “Graver the
crime, longer the sentence and longer the sentence, greater the need for set-offs
and remissions. Punishments are no longer retributory. They are reformative.”
Outlining the philosophy of premature release of prisoners the Constitutional
apex Court bench has held in Maruram Vs. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147: We,
heartwarmly, observe experiments in open jails, lled by lifers, liberal paroles
and probations, generosity of juvenile justice and licensed release or freedom.
We cannot view without gloom the reversion to the sadistic superstition that
the longer a life-convict is kept in a cage the surer will be his redemption. It is
our considered view that beyond an optimum point, say eight years – we mean
no xed formula – the prison detention benumbs and makes nervous wreck or
unmitigated brute of a prisoner”.
In Dadu Vs. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 437 and State of Haryana Vs.
Nauratta Singh it was held by the apex Court that: “Parole relates to executive
action taken after the door has been closed on convict. During parole period there
is no suspension of sentence but the sentence is actually continuing to run during
23
that period also. It is thus clear that parole did not amount to the suspension,
remission or commutation of sentences. A convict is entitled to parole, subject
however, to the condition governing the grant under the statute if any, or the jail
manual or the government instructions.
In Poonam Lata Vs. M.L. Wadhwan (1987) 3 SCC it has been observed
that “the grant of parole is essentially an executive function and instances of
release of detenus on parole were literally unknown until this court and some
of the High Courts in India in recent years made orders of release on parole on
humanitarian considerations. Historically, ‘parole’ is a concept known to military
law and denotes release of a prisoner of war on promise to return. Parole has
become an integral part of the English and American systems of Criminal Justice
intertwined with the evolution of changing attitudes of the society towards crime
and criminals. As a consequence of the introduction of parole into the penal
system, all xed term sentences of imprisonment of above 18 months are subject
to release on licence, that is parole after a third of the period of sentence has been
served. In those countries, parole is taken as an act of grace and not as a matter
of right and the convict prisoner may be released on condition that he abides
by the promise. It is a provisional release from connement but is deemed to
be a part of the imprisonment. Release on parole is a wing of the reformative
process and is expected to provide opportunity to the prisoner to transform
himself into a useful citizen. Parole is thus a grant of partial liberty of lessening of
restrictions to a convict prisoner but release on parole does not change the status
of the prisoner. Rules are framed providing supervision by parole authorities of
the convicts released on parole and in case of failure to perform the promise, the
convict released on parole is directed to surrender to custody.”
In Bachey Lal Vs. State of U.P., the High Court of Allahabad, observed: “Stay
in jail for an indenite length of time leads to irreparable breakdown of the family,
absolute penury of the family and exploitation of children and females …The cost
to the State of keeping a prisoner who has lost the potentiality of committing a
future crime is also a factor to be taken into account for not allowing prisoners to
remain in jail unnecessarily for unlimited periods of time.”
In Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1982) the Constitution Bench said:
...It is, therefore, imperative to voice the concern that courts, aided by the
broad illustrative guidelines indicated by us, will discharge the onerous function
with evermore scrupulous care and humane concern, directed along the highroad
of legislative policy outlined in Section 354(3) viz. that for persons convicted of
murder, life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception. A real and
abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life
through law's instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare
cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.
24
The Bachan Singh principle of 'rarest of rare cases' came up for consideration
and elaborated in the case of Machhi Singh (Machhi Singh and Ors Vs State of
Punjab 1983). It was a case of extraordinary brutality. On account of a family feud
Machhi Singh the main accused in the case, along with eleven accomplices, in
course of a single night, conducted raids on a number of villages killing seventeen
people, men, women and children for no reason other than they were related to
one Amar Singh and his sister Piyaro Bai.
The death sentence awarded to Machhi Singh and two other accused by the
Trial Court and afrmed by the High Court was also conrmed by this Court. In
Machhi Singh the Court put itself in the position of the 'Community' and observed
that though the 'Community' revered and protected life because 'the very
humanistic edice is constructed on the foundation of reverence for life principle'
it may yet withdraw the protection and demand death penalty, It may do so `in
rarest of rare cases' when its collective conscience is so shocked that it will expect
the holders of the judicial power centre to inict death penalty irrespective of their
personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty.
The community may entertain such a sentiment when the crime is viewed from
the platform of the motive for, or the manner of commission of the crime, or the
anti-social or abhorrent nature of the crime, such as for instance:
I. Manner of commission of murder

When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical,
revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of
the community. For instance,
(i) when the house of the victim is set aame with the end in view to roast him
alive in the house.
(ii) when the victim is subjected to inhuman acts of torture or cruelty in order to
bring about his or her death.
(iii) when the body of the victim is cut into pieces or his body is dismembered in
a endish manner.
II. Motive for commission of murder

When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity
and meanness. For instance when
(a) a hired assassin commits murder for the sake of money or reward
(b) a cold-blooded murder is committed with a deliberate design in order
to inherit property or to gain control over property of a ward or a person
under the control of the murderer or vis-a`-vis whom the murderer is in a
dominating position or in a position of trust, or
(c) a murder is committed in the course for betrayal of the motherland.
25
III. Anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime

(a) When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community
etc., is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which
arouse social wrath. For instance when such a crime is committed in order to
terrorize such persons and frighten them into eeing from a place or in order
to deprive them of, or make them surrender, lands or benets conferred on
them with a view to reverse past injustices and in order to restore the social
balance.
(b) In cases of 'bride burning' and what are known as 'dowry deaths' or when
murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry
once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation.
IV. Magnitude of crime

When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple
murders say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of
persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed.
V. Personality of victim of murder

When the victim of murder is (a) an innocent child who could not have
or has not provided even an excuse, much less a provocation, for murder (b) a
helpless woman or a person rendered helpless by old age or inrmity (c) when
the victim is a person vis-a'-vis whom the murderer is in a position of domination
or trust (d) when the victim is a public gure generally loved and respected by
the community for the services rendered by him and the murder is committed for
political or similar reasons other than personal reasons.
Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the power to
suspend or remit sentences and Section 433 with the power to commute sentences.
Section 433A, that was inserted in the Code by an amendment made in 1978,
imposes restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases. It
reads as follows:
Restriction on powers of remission or computation in certain cases –
Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 432, where a sentence of
imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for
which death is one of the punishments provided by laws or where a sentence
of death imposed on a person has been commuted under Section 433 into one of
imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had
at least fourteen years of imprisonment. Section 434 gives concurrent power to
the Central Government in case of death sentence and Section 435 provides that
in certain cases the State Government must act only after consultation with the
Central Government.
26
From the Prison Act and the Rules it appears that for good conduct and
for doing certain duties etc. inside the jail the prisoners are given some days'
remission on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis. The days of remission so earned
by a prisoner are added to the period of his actual imprisonment (including the
period undergone as an under trial) to make up the term of sentence awarded by
the Court. This being the position, the rst question that arises in mind is how
remission can be applied to imprisonment for life. The way in which remission is
allowed, it can only apply to a xed term and life imprisonment, being for the rest
of life, is by nature indeterminate.
Experience shows that in respect of life convicts an assumption can be
made that the total sentence is 20 years and if the convict earns all categories of
remissions in the normal course it may come to 6 years which is less than one
third of 20 years. This is also in consonance with Order 214(C) of the Prisons
Manual which for the purposes of the rules deems a sentence of imprisonment for life to
be a sentence of imprisonment for twenty years.
More recently (2003) The Model Prison Manual for the Superintendence
and Management of Prisons in India, formulated by Bureau of Police Research
and Development (Ministry of Home Affairs) Government of India, offered an
excellent explanation of the objective of premature release of prisoners in the
following manner:
“The primary objective underlying premature release is reformation of
offenders and their rehabilitation and reintegration into the society, while at the
same time ensuring the protection of society from criminal activities. These two
aspects are closely interlinked. Incidental to the same is the conduct, behaviour
and performance of prisoners while in prison. These have a bearing on their
rehabilitative potential and the possibility of their being released by virtue of
remission earned by them, or by an order granting them premature release. The
most important consideration for premature release of prisoners is that they have
become harmless and useful member of a civilized society'"
The Historical Backdrop

The Indian system began with the principle that an offender sentenced to
imprisonment must serve his/her period of sentence in full before he/she could
be released. There was no way of shortening the term except through pardon by
an executive authority authorised in that behalf. As modern principles of prison
treatment began to take shape in the early twentieth century, the necessity for
legal devices to effect premature release of certain prisoners about whom it could
with some certainty be predicted that they had reached a stage at which they
could be released with benet to themselves and safety to the society. The ball
set rolling by the Indian Jail Committee, 1919-1920. The Committee suggested
that “the sentence of every long-term prisoner would be brought under revision
27
as soon as he has served half of the period awarded by the court in the case
of non-habitual convicts and two-thirds of that period in the case of habitual
convicts, provided in both cases that remission earned, but not remission granted
in celebration of public events, should be included in calculating the period
undergone, and provided also that no sentence should come up for revision
until a period of two and half years, including the remission, has been served.
For purposes of granting premature release the Committee recommended that
there should be constituted in each province a revising board which might be
constituted either on a provincial basis or on a local basis”. The Committee also
recommended the appointment of ofcers who should be attached to prisons and
exercise supervision over the released prisoners.
Some years later, several State-level prison reform commissions and
committees dwelt at length on the procedural aspects and the advantages of
conditional release of prisoners, while at the same time voicing the need for a
liberal attitude on the subject.
The subject had been re-examined by All India Jail Manual Committee 1957-
59 which laid guidelines for the review of sentences with regard to the machinery
for review, the criteria for review and the procedure to be followed by the Review
or Advisory Boards. The Working Group on Prisons in Country appointed by
the Ministry of Home Affairs during 1972-73, reviewed the system of premature
releases and opined that the general policy and the procedure for the review of
sentences should be simplied and made uniform in all the States and Union
Territories. It recommended that the provisions contained in the Model Prison
Manual for review of sentences may be followed and the general policy may be
reviewed in the light of experience after every ve years. While agreeing with
the provisions of the Model Prison Manual as regards the categories of prisoners
who should be considered eligible for review, the Working Group, however, felt
that the aggregate substantive sentences for eligibility of review may be 3 years or
more in the case of well-conducted, non-habitual adult offenders and their cases
may be reviewed after they have undergone half of their substantive sentences,
inclusive of remission. The Committee recommended that every State/Union
Territory should constitute one or more Review or Advisory Boards depending
upon its size and the review should be made on the basis of a Review File to be
maintained for each eligible prisoner. The Group further suggested that the Board
should examine the Review Files and may recommend deserving prisoners for
the premature release or order that the case should be reconsidered after specied
period or recommend alternate measures of treatment in respect of individual
prisoners.
The Central Advisory Board on Correctional Services in its very rst meeting
held in March 1970 stressed the need for evolving model rules to govern premature
release of prisoners. The Board unanimously agreed that a uniform procedure
28
and terminology for premature release may be adopted in the country. It was
commented that the State Acts and rules regarding premature releases created
a lot of confusion about the meaning of the word parole. The adoption of the
term parole in its international usage for the premature release of prisoners was
recommended by the Board. Accordingly, the National Institute of Social Defence
engaged itself in formulating a comprehensive framework for the prisoners’
release on parole in suitable cases.
The Director, National Institute of Social Defence, in his capacity of Prison
Advisor to the Ministry of Home Affairs prepared a draft of the Prisoners’
Release on Parole Bill to serve as a blueprint for enacting a standard legislation.
The Bill was discussed in the Seventh Meeting of the Central Advisory Board on
Correctional Services on March 20, 1976. The Bill proposed to dene ‘parole’ as
a procedure whereby a person undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, who is
considered suitable, may be released under specied conditions, at a time deemed
appropriate by the State Government, before the expiry of his sentence so that
he may secure for himself a timely rehabilitation and reassimilation in society.
The Bill contemplated that notwithstanding anything contained in section 432 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, sentence of imprisonment, and it appears to the
State Government from his antecedents, conduct and behaviour in the prison that
he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a useful, industrious and normal life, if
he is released from prison, the State Government may permit him to be released
on parole and he may be placed under the supervision or authority of probation
ofcer or a similar institution or of a person or society professing the same religion
as that of the prisoner. The Bill excluded from the consideration the release of
the offenders sentenced under Section 376 (Rap.), 396 (Dacoity with murder), 402
(Assembling for the purposes of dacoity), 467 (Forgery of valuable security, Will
etc.) 474 (Possessing forged documents), 489-A (counterfeiting currency notes or
bank notes), 489-B (using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank
notes), and 489-D (Making or possessing instruments or materials for forging or
counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes).
The Bill endorsed in full the guidelines of the Model Prison Manual in regard
to the consideration of the release on parole the following categories of Prisoners:
29
Type of Prisoners Aggregate When to be reviewed

substantive
sentence
(i) Women Offenders Imprisonment On admission
of any length
for crimes (like
infanticide etc.)
committed un-
der social pres-
sures
(ii) Non-habitual women Three years or On undergoing half of their
offenders other than more substantive sentence inclu-
more mentioned in (1) sive of remission
(iii) Non-habitual adoles- Three years or On undergoing half of sub-
cent offenders more stantive sentence inclusive
of remission
(iv) Non-habitual adult Five years or On undergoing two-third
offenders more of their substantive sen-
tence inclusive of remission
(v) Habitual offenders Five years or On undergoing two-third
more of their substantive sen-
tence inclusive of remis-
sion.
(vi) Life Convicts
(a) Women Imprisonment On undergoing 10 years in-
for life cluding remission
(b) Non-habitual ado- Imprisonment On undergoing 10 years in-
lescents for life cluding remission.
(c) Adults (Habitual Imprisonment On undergoing two-third
and non-habitual) for life. of life sentence inclusive of
remission.
(vii) Old and inrm of- Three years or On undergoing half of sub-
fenders more stantive sentence inclusive
of remission.
Note: The State Government may decide according to local conditions as to which
cases falling under category (I) of this rule should be considered eligible for being
reviewed.
The Present Position

Article 72 of the Constitution of India empowers the President to grant
pardons, reprieves, respites or remission of punishment or to suspend, remit or
commute the sentence of any person in certain cases, Article 161 of the Constitution
species the powers of the Governor of a State to grant pardons, reprieves, respites
30
or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence

of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to
which the executive power of the State extends. Such powers are exercised by
the President or the Governor in pursuance of their executive functions. These
provisions, without interfering with the course of justice, enunciate the objective
of individualizing the penal programme in relation to the offender’s personality
and the circumstances in which he committed the offence.
Besides these powers of the President of India and Governors of the States,
the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 under section 432 provides that when
any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate
Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which
the person concerned accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit
the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced. The
provision further contains that the appropriate Government may by general
rules or special orders give directions as to the suspension of sentences and the
conditions on which petition should be presented and dealt with.
There are at present four states in the country, namely, Haryana, Madhya
Pradesh, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh which have enacted special legislations on the
subject. The legislations are titled as: The Punjab (now Punjab and Haryana) The
Good Conduct Prisoners'’Probational Release Act, 1926. The Madhya Pradesh
Prisoners’ Release on Probation Act, 1958, and the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners’
Release on Probation Act, 1938.
Prisoners’ release on probation in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana,
Punjab and Madhya Pradesh is effected in the case of those prisoners in whose
case it appears to the State Governments that the prisoners concerned are likely to
abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life. All such prisoners may be released on
licence on the condition that they be placed under the supervision or authority of a
government ofcer (Probation ofcer/ Reformation ofcer/ Reclamation ofcer),
or a person willing and approved for the purpose by the State Government, or
such secular institution or such society which may be willing to undertake the
job and be also recognized by the State Government. The licence granted remains
in force until the date on which the prisoner released would be in the execution
of the order of warrant authorizing his imprisonment has been discharged had
he not been released on licence. The period served by the licencee is reckoned as
part of the period of imprisonment to which he was sentenced. The licence may
contain such conditions as the State Government deem t. In the event of breach of
conditions the licence may be revoked with reasons recorded in writing and with
giving an opportunity to the licencee to represent his case before the concerned
ofcials. The prisoners eligible for release on licence are generally those who have
served one-third of their sentence of imprisonment or a total period of ve years
with remissions, or whichever is the less. The following classes of offenders are
31
not eligible for conditional release under these Acts: (a) Persons who have been
convicted for offences under the following Acts or provisions thereof (1) Chapters
V-A, VI and VII and Sections 216 A, 224 and 225 (if it is a case of escape from jail)
231, 232, 302, 303, 311, 328, 364, 376, 377, 382, 386 and 389, 392 to 402, 413, 455,
458 to 460 and 489-A of the Indian Penal Code, (2) those whose licence has been
previously revoked on account of the breach of conditions of the licence; (3) those
whose application for release has on a previous occasion been rejected by the
State Government, and (4) those who have been sentenced to a period of one year
or less under any section of the Indian Penal Code or under any other Act.
In other States where no such special enactments exist the rules and
procedures for the premature release of prisoners are contained in State Prison
Manuals. The rules and procedures governing such release are at variance in
different States though, there still appears a certain amount of commonality. For
example all State Prison Manuals permit the premature release of prisoners of
the following sort: (1) convicts suffering from a disease which is likely to prove
fatal if the convict remains in prison, but from which there is a reasonable chance
of recovery if he is released (2) aged and inrm convicts who are permanently
incapacitated from the commission of further crimes of the nature of that for
which they had been convicted; (3) convicts approaching death or likely to die
soon, and (4) other long-term convicts who have served two-third or half of their
sentences including remission and have remained in prison for not less than two
to three years.
For effecting the premature release of such prisoners each State has Revising
Boards consisting of the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the prison
is situated, the Sessions Judge of the same district and a non-ofcial person,
preferably local member of the State legislature nominated by the District
Magistrate of the District in which the Board meets. The Superintendent of the
central prison or the district jail, as the case may be, acts as a secretary of the
revising board. The meetings of the revising boards are held biannually or tri-
annually, and the board considers the revision sheets of the prisoners submitted
by the Superintendent of the Prison/jail. The revising boards consider the
cases of (a) those casual convicts with a sentence of not less than 3 years, and
not more than 4 years when they have served two years of their sentence, and
also of those convicts with sentences of over four years when they have served
half of their sentences; (b) those habitual convicts who have served two-thirds of
their sentence and have completed at least two and a half years of imprisonment
subject to the giving of green signal by the Superintendent of the Prison certifying
that having regard to the work and conduct of the convicts, and their mental and
physical condition their premature release is worth considering. The remission
earned by the prisoner is not taken into consideration while calculating the period
of imprisonment actually undergone by the prisoner.
32
In the case of convicts sentenced to life imprisonment (reckoned as 20 years)

and in the case of convicts with concurrent sentences, the question of premature
release arises only when the prisoner has served half of the sentence if he is a
casual, and two-third if he is a habitual. Further in the case of convicts whose
period of consecutive sentences exceed twenty years the question of their
premature release arises only when the prisoner has served ten years if he is a
casual and 13 years and 4 months, if he is a habitual.
The Recent Amendment

The policy of premature release of prisoners whose death sentence has
been commuted into one of life imprisonment has received a severe setback
with the insertion of section 433 A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by
Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment Act of 1978) on the recommendation
of the Joint Committee of both the Houses of Parliament on the Indian Penal
Code (Amendment) Bill 1972. The Committee had observed in its report that
“Sometimes due to grant of remission often murderers sentenced or commuted
to life imprisonment were released at the end of 5 to 6 years”. In view of this the
Committee suggested that in such cases the convict should not be released unless
he had served at least 14 years of actual imprisonment. The new Section (433-A)
reads: "notwithstanding anything contained in section 432, whether a sentence
or imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for
which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where sentence of
death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 into one of
the imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless
he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment”. The insertion of this
section in the Criminal Procedure Code caused an intense debate because of its
far reaching implications in the direction of prisoner’s reform. Those opposed to
the provision argued that such a legislation would have detrimental effect on the
implementation of prison reform, as it has removed the very essential motivation
for a prisoner to discipline himself in good behaviour since now it will not earn
him early reprieve. It was further contended that the provision has eliminated the
distinction between a prisoner who wants to reform himself and one who does
not, since there is no way to reward the former and thereby encourage the latter
category to improve his behaviour. The Section, it was apprehended, will create
serious administrative problems in jails, overcrowding being one of them. This
will also result in deteriorating the morale of the lifers and encourage them to
behave in unruly fashion in jail.
Clarifying its position the Government observed that the reasoning behind
imposing such a restriction in the Cr. P.C. is that with the sentence of death (or
its execution) becoming rare in view of the liberalization in the penal law effected
over the years or a result of commutation by the appropriate Government. It is
necessary that the offender should at least spend in the normal course sufciently
33
long period of imprisonment in jail for the sentence to have deterrent effect. The
Government further claried that the restriction introduced by Section 433 A does
not apply to all life convicts. It applies to those prisoners who are convicted of
capital offence i.e. an offence for which death is one of the punishments prescribed
by law. The Government’s contention was based on the assumption that when the
Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 1978 as passed by the Rajya Sabha and then
pending before Lok Sabha becomes Law the restriction imposed under the section
433A shall remain applicable to a very small number of convicts who shall be
convicted of capital crimes where death sentence will be one of the punishments
prescribed by law.
The Government further contended that even in this small number of
cases, the restriction will not in any way curb the constitutional power to grant
remission, commutation vested in the President or the Governor by virtue of
article 72 and 161. This contention of the Government does not hold good today
because the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 1978 has been allowed to
lapse (thanks to the cynical disregard of our parliamentarians who did not nd
time to hold a debate on such an important Bill). The situation today is that the
restrictions imposed by Section 433A are absolute and apply to all convicts under
life imprisonment.
The All India Committee on Jail Reforms (1980-83) criticised the addition of
section 433A to the Code of Criminal Procedure. In its Report, the Committee said
that the new section “has cast a dark shadow on the lives of prisoners sentenced to
life imprisonment. A person convicted after December 18, 1978 and sentenced to
life imprisonment cannot now hope to be released earlier than 14 years of actual
imprisonment. It means that the remission system which is expected to function as
an incentive for good behaviour, self-discipline and reformation, has no meaning
to this group of prisoners. This has created many typical problems for prison
administration. Lifers now interpret that life imprisonment is virtual entombment
for 14 long years in prison. This feeling has killed all the hopes and initiatives
for lifers. They have no interest in prison programmes such as work, vocational
training, education, etc. Bereft of all hopes for their future life they are simmering
with discontent. They harbour anti-feelings towards everything around them. In
a decade or so a large block of lifers will get concentrated in prisons all over
India. It will be natïve to expect that lifers hereafter will be interested in their self-
improvement and social re-education. A chronic discontentment among lifers,
apart from having adverse effects on prison discipline and morale, is bound to
explode into violent prison riots.”
Efforts at Streamlining the System of Premature Release of

Prisoners
Whilst the reports on the defects and drawbacks in the operationalization of
34
the system of premature release had been pouring in since 1920s, and were taken
note of by the Indian Jail Manual Committee (1957-59) and the Working Group
on Prisons (1972-73), urging the adoption of a national policy for the review of
sentences in order to make it simplied and uniform in all States and Union
Territories, the All India Committee on Jail Reforms, 1980-83, (popularly known as
Mulla Committee) dealt with the matter in detail. The Committee had mentioned
about various types of remissions and had made some recommendations to
streamline the remission system. As to premature release, which is the effect
of parole the Committee had stated that this is an accepted mode of incentive
to a prisoner, as it saves him not only from the extra period of incarceration; it
also helps in his/her reformation and rehabilitation. The Committee made the
following recommendations:
(A) Rules for eligibility of convicted prisoners for consideration of premature
release should be reviewed and rationalized.
(B) The case of each prisoner eligible for review and premature release should
initially be examined by the institutional classication committee before
being forwarded to the review board.
(C) Review board should be constituted in each State/Union Territory for
consideration of premature release.
(D) The case of every prisoner, which is ripe for review, should be decided within
a maximum period of six months from the date of eligibility.
(E) Each State/Union Territory should formulate a set of guidelines to be
uniformly applied to govern the working Review Boards.
(F) Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be suitably amended.
Implementation Status of Mulla Committee Report on the Subject

of Premature Release
Given that the main objective behind imprisonment of a crime-doer is his
reformation. Jails are expected to undertake from time to time, an assessment of the
impact of correctional programmes made on the inmate’s thinking, attitude and
behaviour. Should he show substantial improvement on these counts, he needs
to become eligible, after completing a portion of his sentence, for ‘pre-mature
release’. Stated differently, pre-mature release amounts to giving a chance (which
indeed has been earned) to prisoners to resume normal life in the community.
In all likelihood, the prisoners who have satisfactorily completed in correctional
institutions, a portion of their sentence would get psychologically, socially and
economically reintegrated into society. Among other things, ‘premature release
also lessens burden on the public exchequer’.
It might be added that, in most states, rules provide for the revocation of
premature release, should the releasee indulge in anti-legal conduct.
35
As of now, almost all the States and UTs have provision for premature
release for the convicts. However, those convicted for offences under NDPS Act
are precluded from this correctional measure. Similar is the situation of those who
are convicted for murder – they have to complete fourteen years in jail before they
could be considered for pre-mature release. In most States and UTs, premature
release is granted to convicts under the supervision of Welfare/Probation Ofcer
who undertakes counselling of the released convicts and does liaison work with
community leaders and local authorities. Apparently, the procedure of premature
release is a distinctive feature of modern corrections. What is the position of the
implementation of after-care services in different parts of the country?
The foregoing discussion brings into focus a number of issues: (I) In the
jail hierarchy the authority which considers and approves premature release.
(ii) The category of offenders ineligible for premature release. (iii) Differential
treatment to women offenders in the grant of premature release. (iv) Differential
treatment to young offenders. (v) Ofcer In-charge for implementing premature
release programmes. These and similar issues have come in the scrutiny of the
Committee.
Para 20.12.10: Record of release of prisoners on leave and special leave should
be properly maintained.
In the re-socialization of jail-inmates, premature release plays an important
role. Should their conduct and work be satisfactory, they become, after completion
of a portion of their term of imprisonment, eligible for release prematurely. Most
enquiry commissions/ committees have recommended the setting up of Review
Board, at the Jail Headquarters, for reviewing the cases of prematurely release.
What is the situation at the jail-level? Table 1 presents relevant information.
In Gujarat and Nagaland, it is prison authorities, which consider and approve
premature release. In ve states, this authority vests in the State Government.
However, 19 States and UTs have Review Board in place at the Jail Headquarters.
Para 20.17.3: The case of each prisoner eligible for review and premature release
should initially be examined by the institutional classication committee before
being forwarded to the Review Board.
It has been suggested that, at the jail-level, there should be a Classication
Committee or Review Committee to identify and recommend cases for premature
release to Prison Headquarters. Table 2 shows that in Himachal Pradesh these
responsibilities are shouldered by the Deputy Superintendent of Jail. For this,
in Manipur and Uttar Pradesh, we have a Classication Committee. On the
other hand, in 24 states and UTs, this responsibility continues to be that of the
Superintendent of Jail.
Paras 20.17.1 and 20.17.2: Rules for eligibility of convicted prisoners for
consideration of premature release should be reviewed and nationalised.
36
Para 13.11.32: Special consideration should be given to women prisoners in the

matter of premature release.
Completion of a portion of term of imprisonment is an eligibility condition
for premature release. Not only does this criterion vary from offence to offence
but also from State to State. This is what would be seen on going through Table
3. Involved in murder cases, an inmate has to complete a quarter of the sentence
of imprisonment; in Mizoram, a half of the sentence; in Andhra Pradesh and
Pondicherry, and in 11 States and UTs three-fourths of the sentence. On the other
hand, there are eight States and UTs which go by the Supreme Court direction of
a minimum of 14 years in jail.
What is the position with regard to those convicted under NDPS Act?
Gujarat reports that such convicts have to complete a half of their sentence of
imprisonment before they could be considered for premature release. On the
other hand, Karnatak, Orissa, Sikkim and Tripura report three-fourths of the
sentence completion (Table 4).
In respect of rest of the offence, information is reected by Table 5. Fourteen
States have furnished information – and it differs from State to State. Taken on
the whole, there is observed a great deal of unclarity and disparity in respect of
sentence completion before inmate is considered for premature release of parole.
Do women inmates receive any differential handling in matters of premature
release? Table 6 presents information in relation to women inmates convicted for
murder. Punjab reports that they have to complete a quarter of the sentence of
imprisonment before they become eligible for premature release. Eight States and
UTs report three-fourths of the sentence completion. An equal number of States
and UTs mention 14 years of actual imprisonment as the eligibility condition.
How about those convicted under NDPS Act. Only four States have
furnished information (Table 7). A half of them mention a quarter of the sentence
of imprisonment. Others mention three-fourths of the sentence. Next, attention
may be diverted to rest of the offences. Earlier response pattern continues (Table
8). Again, there is seen an unmistakable ambiguity and lack of uniformity in
handling women inmates in the matter of premature release.
In relation to premature release, the situation of young offenders (age below
24 years) has also been ascertained. Table 9 brings out information on those young
offenders who have been sentenced for murder. Eight States report the completion
of three-fourths of the sentence of imprisonment as eligibility condition. Another
seven mention 14 years of actual imprisonment in this regard.
Let us turn attention to NDPS cases. Only four States have supplied
information on this count. While Sikkim reports the completion of a quarter of
the sentence of imprisonment, Karnataka, Orissa and Tripura report three-fourths
37
of the sentence as the eligibility condition for pre-mature release (Table 10).
Table 11 presents information about the rest of the cases. Only fourteen States
and UTs have supplied the needed information. It ranges from a quarter of the
sentence to three-fourths of the sentence. Ambiguity, lack of uniformity are in
evidence in respect of pre-mature release of young offenders also.
Para 20.17.5: The case of every prisoner which is mature for review should be
decided within a maximum period of 6 months from the date of eligibility.
This apart, the processing-time of premature release is critically important.
Table 12 presents information on the time it takes. It is seen that, in ten States
and UTs, it takes about three months to be released prematurely from the date
of maturity for premature release. In six States, it takes about six months. And
there are ve States in which it takes as long as 12 months. The States and UTs
taking more than three months, on this account, would decode to streamline their
planning and decision-making procedures (Table 12).
Para 20.17.8: The management of record relating to review of sentences and
premature release should be streamlined.
It would be relevant to examine as to what rank of jail ofcer maintains record
of premature release cases? On scrutinizing Table 13 it would be observed that, in
15 States, non-gazetted intermediate-rung jail ofcers handled this responsibility.
Table 1 : “In the State/UT, which authority considers and approves premature
release of convicts?”
Sl. STATE/UT RESPONSE
No. IG/ REVIEW GOVT. NR NS
DG BOARD
1. Andhra Pradesh - √ - - -
2. Arunachal Pradesh - - - NR -
3. Assam - - √ - -
4. Bihar - √ - - -
5. Chhattisgarh - √ - - -
6. Goa - √ - - -
7. Gujarat √ - - - -
8. Haryana - - √ - -
9. Himachal Pradesh - - √ - -
10. Jammu & Kashmir - - √ - -
11. Jharkhand - - - - NS
12. Karnataka - √ - - -
13. Kerala - - - - NS
14. Madhya Pradesh - √ - - -
15. Maharashtra - - √ - -
38
16. Manipur - √ - - -
17. Meghalaya - - - NR -
18. Mizoram - √ - - -
19. Nagaland √ - - - -
20. Orissa - √ - - -
21. Punjab - √ - - -
22. Rajasthan - √ - - -
23. Sikkim - √ - - -
24. Tamil Nadu - √ - - -
25. Tripura - √ - - -
26. Uttar Pradesh - √ - - -
27. Uttranchal - - - - NS
28. West Bengal - √ - - -
29. A & N Island - √ - - -
30. Chandigarh - √ - - -
31. D & N Haveli - - - NR -
32. Daman & Diu - - - NR -
33. Delhi - √ - - -
34. Lakshadweep - - - NR -
35. Pondicherry - √ - - -
NR= No response NS= Information NOT SUPPLIED by the State/UT
Table 2 : “At the Jail level which authority forwards to the Jail Headquarters
the recommendations for the consideration and approval of the case
of a convict for premature release?”
No. DY SUPDT CLASSIFICATION NR NS
SUPDT COMMITTEE
3. Assam - √ - - -
4. Bihar - √ - - -
5. Chattisgarh - √ - - -
6. Goa - √ - - -
7. Gujarat - √ - - -
8. Haryana - √ - - -
9. Himachal Pradesh √ - - - -
10. Jammu & Kashmir - √ - - -
12. Karnataka - √ - - -
13. Kerala - - - - NS
39

15. Maharashtra - √ - - -
16. Manipur - - √ - -
17. Meghalaya - √ - - -
18. Mizoram - √ - - -
19. Nagaland - √ - - -
20. Orissa - √ - - -
21. Punjab - √ - - -
22. Rajasthan - √ - - -
23. Sikkim - √ - - -
24. Tamil Nadu - √ - - -
25. Tripura - √ - - -
26. Uttar Pradesh - - √ - -
28. West Bengal - √ - - -
29. A & N Island - √ - - -
30. Chandigarh - √ - - -
31. D & N Haveli - - - NR -
32. Daman & Diu - - - NR -
33. Delhi - √ - - -
35. Pondicherry - √ - - -
Table 3 : “What portion a convict should have completed to become eligible

for premature release?” (Murder)
No. ONE- ONE- THREE- 14 NR NS
FOURTH HALF FOURTHS YEARS
1. Andhra Pradesh - - - - NR -
2. Arunachal Pradesh - - - - NR -
3. Assam - - - - NR -
4. Bihar - - √ - - -
5. Chattisgarh - - - √ - -
6. Goa - - √ - - -
7. Gujarat - - - √ - -
8. Haryana - - - - NR -
9. Himachal Pradesh - - √ - - -
40
10. Jammu & Kashmir - - - - NR -

11. Jharkhand - - - - - NS
12. Karnataka - - √ - - -
13. Kerala - - - - - NS
14. Madhya Pradesh - - - √ - -
15. Maharashtra - - - √ - -
16. Manipur - - - - NR -
17. Meghalaya - - - - NR -
18. Mizoram √ - - - - -
19. Nagaland - - √ - - -
20. Orissa - - √ - - -
21. Punjab - √ - - - -
22. Rajasthan - - √ - - -
23. Sikkim - - √ - - -
24. Tamil Nadu - - - √ - -
25. Tripura - - √ - - -
26. Uttar Pradesh - - - √ - -
27. Uttranchal - - - - - NS
28. West Bengal - - - √ - -
29. A & N Island - - √ - - -
30. Chandigarh - - √ - - -
31. D & N Haveli - - - - NR -
32. Daman & Diu - - - - NR -
33. Delhi - - √ - - -
34. Lakshadweep - - - - NR -
35. Pondicherry - - - √ - -

for premature release?” (NDPS ACT)

No. ONE-HALF THREE- NR NS
FOURTHS
1. Andhra Pradesh - - NR -
2. Arunachal Pradesh - - NR -
41
3. Assam - - - -
4. Bihar - √ - -
5. Chattisgarh - - NR -
6. Goa - - NR -
7. Gujarat √ - - -
8. Haryana - - NR -
9. Himachal Pradesh - - NR -
10. Jammu & Kashmir - - NR -
11. Jharkhand - - - NS
12. Karnataka - √ - -
13. Kerala - - - NS
14. Madhya Pradesh - - NR -
15. Maharashtra - - NR -
16. Manipur - - NR -
17. Meghalaya - - NR -
18. Mizoram - - NR -
19. Nagaland - - NR -
20. Orissa - - - -
21. Punjab √ - NR -
22. Rajasthan - - NR -
23. Sikkim - √ - -
24. Tamil Nadu - - NR -
25. Tripura - √ - -
26. Uttar Pradesh - - NR -
27. Uttranchal - - - NS
28. West Bengal - - NR -
29. A & N Island - - NR -
30. Chandigarh - - NR -
31. D & N Haveli - - NR -
32. Daman & Diu - - NR -
33. Delhi - - NR -
34. Lakshadweep - - NR -
35. Pondicherry - - NR -
42

for premature release?” (Others)
1. Andhra √ - - - - -
Pradesh
2. Arunachal - - - - NR -
Pradesh
3. Assam - - - - NR -
4. Bihar - - √ - - -
5. Chattisgarh √ - - - - -
6. Goa √ - - - - -
7. Gujarat - - √ - - -
8. Haryana - - - - NR -
9. Himachal - - - - NR -
Pradesh
10. Jammu & - - - - NR -
Kashmir
12. Karnataka - - √ - - -
13. Kerala - - - - - NS
14. Madhya - - - √ - -
Pradesh
15. Maharashtra - - - - NR -
16. Manipur - - - √ - -
18. Mizoram - - - - NR -
19. Nagaland - - - - NR -
20. Orissa - - √ - - -
21. Punjab - - - - NR -
22. Rajasthan √ - - - - -
23. Sikkim √ - - - - -
24. Tamil Nadu - √ - √ - -
25. Tripura - - √ - - -
26. Uttar Pradesh - - - √ NR -
28. West Bengal - - - √ NR -
29. A & N Island - - √ - - -
30. Chandigarh - - - - NR -
31. D & N Haveli - - - - NR -
32. Daman & Diu - - - - NR -
43
33. Delhi - - - - NR -
35. Pondicherry - - √ √ - -
Table 6 : “In the case of women offenders, what portion they should have
completed to become eligible for premature release?” (Others)
1. Andhra Pradesh - √ - - - -
3. Assam - - - - NR -
4. Bihar - - √ - - -
6. Goa - √ - - - -
7. Gujarat - - - √ - -
8. Haryana - √ √ - - -
9. Himachal Pradesh - - - - NR -
12. Karnataka - √ - - - -
13. Kerala - - - - - NS
14. Madhya Pradesh - - - - - -
16. Manipur - - - - NR -
18. Mizoram - - - - NR -
19. Nagaland - - √ - NR -
20. Orissa - - √ - - -
21. Punjab √ - - - - -
22. Rajasthan - - √ - - -
23. Sikkim - √ - - - -
24. Tamil Nadu - - - √ - -
25. Tripura - - √ - - -
28. West Bengal - - - √ - -
29. A & N Island - - √ - - -
30. Chandigarh - - √ - - -
31. D & N Haveli - - - - NR -
44
32. Daman & Diu - - - - NR -

33. Delhi - - √ - - -
completed to become eligible for premature release?” (NDPS ACT)
No. ONE-HALF THREE-FOURTHS NR NS
3. Assam - - - -
4. Bihar - √ - -
6. Goa - - NR -
7. Gujarat - - NR -
8. Haryana - - NR -
12. Karnataka √ - - -
13. Kerala - - - NS
20. Orissa - √ - -
21. Punjab - - NR -
23. Sikkim √ - - -
25. Tripura - √ - -
45

33. Delhi - - NR -
completed to become eligible for premature release?” (Others)
1. Andhra Pradesh √ - - - - -
3. Assam - - - - NR -
4. Bihar - - √ - - -
5. Chattisgarh √ - - - - -
6. Goa √ - - - - -
7. Gujarat - - - - - -
8. Haryana - - √ - NR -
12. Karnataka √ - - - - -
13. Kerala - - - - - NS
14. Madhya Pradesh - - - - NR -
16. Manipur - - - √ - -
18. Mizoram - - - - NR -
20. Orissa - - √ - - -
21. Punjab - - - - NR -
22. Rajasthan √ - - - - -
23. Sikkim √ - - - - -
24. Tamil Nadu - √ - - - -
25. Tripura - - √ - - -
28. West Bengal - - - - NR -
29. A & N Island - - √ - - -
30. Chandigarh - - - - NR -
46
31. D & N Haveli - - - - NR -

32. Daman & Diu - - - - NR -
33. Delhi - - - - NR -
35. Pondicherry √ - - - - -
Table 9 : “In the case of young offenders (age, below 24 years), what portion
they should have completed to become eligible for premature
release?” (Murder)
1. Andhra Pradesh - √ - - - -
3. Assam - - - - NR -
4. Bihar - - √ - - -
6. Goa - √ - - - -
7. Gujarat - - - √ - -
8. Haryana - - √ - - -
11. Jharkhand - - √ - - NS
12. Karnataka - - - - NR -
13. Kerala - - - - - NS
14. Madhya Pradesh - - - √ - -
15. Maharashtra - - - √ - -
16. Manipur - - - - NR -
18. Mizoram - - - - NR -
20. Orissa - - √ - - -
21. Punjab √ - - - - -
22. Rajasthan - - √ - - -
23. Sikkim √ - - - - -
24. Tamil Nadu - - - √ - -
25. Tripura - - √ - - -
28. West Bengal - - - - NR -
47
29. A & N Island - - √ - - -

30. Chandigarh - - √ - - -
31. D & N Haveli - - - - NR -
32. Daman & Diu - - - - NR -
33. Delhi - - √ - - -
Table 10 : “In the case of young offenders (Age, below 24 years), what portion
they should have completed to become eligible for premature
release?” (NDPS ACT)
No. ONE- THREE- NR NS
HALF FOURTHS
3. Assam - - NR -
4. Bihar - √ - -
6. Goa - - NR -
7. Gujarat - - NR -
8. Haryana - - NR -
12. Karnataka - √ - -
13. Kerala - - - NS
20. Orissa - √ - -
21. Punjab - - NR -
23. Sikkim √ - - -
25. Tripura - √ - -
48
33. Delhi - - NR -
Table 11 : “In the case of young offenders (age, below 24 years), what portion
they should have completed to become eligible for pre-mature
release?” (Others)
No. ONE- ONE- Two- THREE- 14 NR NS
FOURTH HALF THIRDS FOURTHS YEARS
1. Andhra Pradesh - √ - - - - -
2. Arunachal Pradesh - - - - - NR -
3. Assam - - - - - NR -
4. Bihar - - - √ - - -
5. Chattisgarh - √ - - - - -
6. Goa - √ - - - - -
7. Gujarat - - - √ - - -
8. Haryana - - - - - NR -
9. Himachal Pradesh - - - - - NR -
10. Jammu & Kashmir - - - - - NR -
11. Jharkhand - - - - - - NS
12. Karnataka - - - √ - - -
13. Kerala - - - - - - NS
14. Madhya Pradesh - - - - √ - -
15. Maharashtra - - - - - NR -
16. Manipur - - - - - NR -
17. Meghalaya - - - - - NR -
18. Mizoram - - - - - NR -
19. Nagaland - - - - - NR -
20. Orissa - - - √ - - -
21. Punjab - - - - - NR -
22. Rajasthan - √ - - - - -
23. Sikkim √ - - - - - -
24. Tamil Nadu - - √ - - - -
25. Tripura - - - √ - - -
26. Uttar Pradesh - - - - √ - -
49
27. Uttranchal - - - - - - NS
28. West Bengal - - - - - NR -
29. A & N Island - - - √ - - -
30. Chandigarh - - - - - NR -
31. D & N Haveli - - - - - NR -
32. Daman & Diu - - - - - NR -
33. Delhi - - - - - NR -
34. Lakshadweep - - - - - NR -
35. Pondicherry - - - √ - - -
Table 12 : “Within how much time from the date of maturity for premature
release a convict is on the average released?”

No. WITHIN 3 WITHIN 6 IN 12 NR NS
MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS
+
3. Assam - √ - - -
4. Bihar - √ - - -
5. Chattisgarh - - √ - -
6. Goa √ - - - -
7. Gujarat √ - - - -
8. Haryana - - √ - -
9. Himachal Pradesh √ - - - -
10. Jammu & Kashmir - - - NR -
12. Karnataka - - - NR -
13. Kerala - - - - NS
15. Maharashtra - - - NR -
16. Manipur √ - - - -
17. Meghalaya - - - NR -
18. Mizoram - - - NR -
19. Nagaland - - - NR -
20. Orissa - √ - - -
21. Punjab - √ - - -
22. Rajasthan - √ - - -
23. Sikkim √ - - - -
24. Tamil Nadu √ - - - -
25. Tripura - - √ - -
50
26. Uttar Pradesh - - √ - -

28. West Bengal - - √ - -
29. A & N Island √ - - - -
30. Chandigarh √ - - - -
31. D & N Haveli - - - NR -
32. Daman & Diu - - - NR -
33. Delhi √ - - - -
35. Pondicherry √ - - - -
Table 13 : “A jail ofcer of what rank maintains the record of premature

release?”
No. AJ/DJ/ SUPDT./ WO/ ANY NR NS
JAILOR DY.SUPDT. PO OTHER
1. Andhra Pradesh - - - - - -
3. Assam √ - - - - -
4. Bihar - √ - - - -
5. Chattisgarh - - √ - - -
6. Goa √ - - - - -
7. Gujarat √ - - - - -
8. Haryana - √ - - - -
9. Himachal Pradesh √ - - - - -
10. Jammu & Kashmir - √ - - - -
12. Karnataka √ - - - - -
13. Kerala - - - - - NS
14. Madhya Pradesh - - √ - - -
15. Maharashtra √ - - - - -
16. Manipur √ - - - - -
18. Mizoram √ - - - - -
19. Nagaland - - - √ - -
20. Orissa - - √ - - -
21. Punjab - √ - - - -
22. Rajasthan √ - - - - -
23. Sikkim √ - - - - -
24. Tamil Nadu - √ - - - -
51
25. Tripura - - √ - - -
26. Uttar Pradesh √ - - - - -
28. West Bengal √ - - - - -
29. A & N Island √ - - - - -
30. Chandigarh √ - - - - -
31. D & N Haveli - - - - NR -
32. Daman & Diu - - - - NR -
33. Delhi - √ - - - -
35. Pondicherry √ - - - - -
Initiative of the National Human Rights Commission

Initiating steps towards correcting the aberrations in the prevalent practices
with regard to premature release of prisoners, the National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC) prepared an outline of the Indian Prisons Bill, 1995, which
was circulated among State Governments and Union Territory administration
for their comments and observations. The Bill took note of public criticism and
judicial indignation and emphasised an urgent need for a thorough reorganization
of prison system, including the correction of the aberrations of the system of
premature release of prisoners.
Chapter XI of the Bill dealt with remission and premature release. In respect
of the review of sentences, the Bill emphasized the review of sentences to provide
the necessary exibility to the determinate/denite sentencing system under the
law, since it serves as a mechanism for release of prisoners at a stage considered
most appropriate for his/her reintegration into society. The Commission stressed
the need to bring in a basic uniformity and consistency in the operation of the
relevant laws, rules and regulations governing premature releases. For this, the
Commission suggested:
1. Review of sentences may be considered by a Review Board to be presided
over by the Inspector General of Prisons with two social workers, a social
scientist, the District Magistrate, the District Judge and two correctional
administrators drawn on it. The recommendations of the Board may be sent
to the State Government or to the Government of India in case of ex-military
prisoners, for orders. The procedure to be adopted may be prescribed in
rules.
2. Prisoners convicted of any of the offences of rape, forgery, dacoity, terrorist
crimes, corruption and black-marketing may be excluded from the review of
sentences.
52
3. The following categories of prisoners may be considered eligible for the

review of sentences:
(i) Women offenders convicted for crimes committed under social pressure
on admission,
(ii) Non-habitual women offenders other than mentioned in (i) above,
convicted for 3 years or more on undergoing half of their substantive
sentence inclusive of remission,
(iii) Non-habitual adult offenders convicted for 3 years or more on
undergoing half of their substantive sentence inclusive of remission.
(iv) Non-habitual adult offenders convicted for 4 years or more on undergoing
two-third of their substantive sentence inclusive of remission.
(v) Habitual offenders convicted for 5 years or more on undergoing two-
third of their substantive sentence inclusive of remission.
(vi) Life convicts other than those covered by Section 433 A of the Cr. P.C. on
undergoing 10 years including remission.
(vii) Old and inrm offenders convicted for 3 years or more on undergoing
half of their substantive sentence inclusive of remission.
The case of a prisoner suffering from any serious disease and about whom
civil surgeon and the prison medical ofcer certify that in all probability the
prisoner may die within one year may be submitted to the Government for being
reviewed for conditional or unconditional release.
Urging uniformity of standards The National Human Rights Commission in
its proceedings of July 20, 1999 recorded that “in order to ensure that, as far as
possible, a greater uniformity of standards is established and achieved”. For this
purpose, the Commission evolved certain broad criteria after taking into account
the practices and procedures existing in various States. The Commission desired
that the guidelines be circulated to all the State Governments to elicit their views
and responses in regard thereto. The Commission further desired that letters be
addressed to the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments to have the matter
considered and their views and suggestions, if any, forwarded to the Commission
on or before 30th September, 1999.
The States and Union Territories which responded were: Lakshadweep, Delhi,
Madhya Pradesh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Orissa, Meghalaya and
Uttar Pradesh. Other States and Union Territories have not responded despite
lapse of sufcient time. The National Law School of India, to which the guidelines
had been forwarded for comments/opinion, also did not respond.
The Commission considered the matter and evolved the guidelines (as
below) in the light of the suggestions received from the States.
The Commission, in its proceedings of 20th October, 1999 recorded that
53
“these guidelines shall be implemented by the States and wherever the existing
provisions of the rules are inconsistent with any of the aforesaid guidelines,
the State Government shall make appropriate modications in the rules and
implement the guidelines so that there is uniformity in this regard throughout
the country”.
Guidelines of the National Human Rights Commission on Premature Release
of Prisoners Undergoing Sentence of Life Imprisonment
The Backdrop
The Commission had been receiving complaints from and on behalf of
convicts undergoing life imprisonment about the non-consideration of their
cases for premature release even after they have undergone long periods of
sentence ranging from 10 to 20 years with or without remissions. Pursuant to the
information received and closer study of the issues involved in this important
issue impinging upon the human rights of a large number of convicts undergoing
life imprisonment in the prisons throughout the length and breadth of the country,
the Commission was surprised to note that although the said power of premature
release is to be exercised by the State Government under the Provisions of Section
432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the procedure and practice followed
by the State Governments to exercise the said power is not uniform.
Some of the States like Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and UP have incorporated
the procedure in their special laws while others incorporated the same in their
rules or jail manuals. The system provided for, differed from State to State so far
as the eligibility criteria of the persons eligible for consideration for premature
release, the composition of the Sentence Review Boards and the guidelines
governing the question of premature release are concerned but the Commission
has been informed that more often this system/procedure provided for was not
being followed meticulously so much so that the Sentence Review Boards have
not been meeting at regular intervals for long periods.
Several instances had come to the notice of the Commission where certain
inmates were not released nor their cases considered even after they had
undergone the imprisonment for over 20 years. The Commission had, therefore,
shown its concern and was of the view that it is high time that a uniform system
of premature release of the prisoners is evolved for adoption by the State
Governments.
In its proceedings dated 4th March, 1999 in case No. 233/10/97-98 and other
linked cases, the Commission requested Shri R.C. Jain, Registrar General, Shri
D.R. Karthikeyan, Director General (I) and Shri Sankar Sen (Special Rapporteur
and the Chief Coordinator of the ‘Custodial Justice Programme’) to meet and
evolve a set of recommendations for bringing uniformity to the procedure in
all the States to follow. The Commission advised that while formulating the
54
recommendations the Committee may have particular regard to the need not only
to the constitution of the Review Boards, their proper composition but also to
the question of ensuring promptitude of their meetings so that the unfortunate
situation of the Boards, even where they exist but do not meet for a long time is
avoided.
Accordingly, Committee has deliberated over the issue, considered the
relevant law on the subject and the information received from most of the States
as to the system of premature release being followed by them. The Committee in
its endeavour to propose the uniform recommendations also considered it proper
to refer to the report and recommendations of the All India Committee on Jail
Reforms 1980-83 constituted by Justice A.N. Mulla. The Committee makes the
following observations & recommendations:
1. The relevant provisions in regard to the suspension and remission of sentence
is contained in Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure which reads as follows:
“Power to suspend or remit sentences:

(1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence,
the appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or
upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the
execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment
to which he has been sentenced.
(2) Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government it
may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the
conviction was had or conrmed to state his opinion as to whether the
application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for
such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a
certied copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists.
(3) If any condition on which a sentence has been suspended or remitted
is, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, not fullled, the
appropriate Government may cancel the suspension or remission, and
thereupon the person in whose favour the sentence has been suspended
or remitted may, if at large, be arrested by any police ofcer, without
warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
(4) The condition on which a sentence is suspended or remitted under this
section may be one to be fullled by the person in whose favour the
sentence is suspended or remitted, or one independent of his will.
(5) The appropriate Government may, by general rules or special orders,
give directions as to the suspension of sentences and the conditions on
which petitions should be presented and dealt with:
Provided that in the case of any sentence (other than a sentence of ne)
passed on a male person above the age of eighteen years, no such petition by any
55
other person on his behalf shall be entertained, unless the person sentenced is in
jail, and –
(a) Where such petition is made by the person sentenced it is presented
through the ofcer in-charge of the jail; or
(b) Where such petition is made by any other person, it contains a declaration
that the person sentenced is in jail.
(6). The provisions of the above sub-sections shall also apply to any order
passed by a criminal Court under any section of this Code or of any
other law which restricts the liberty of any person or impose any liability
upon him or his property.
(7). In this section and in section 433, the expression “appropriate
Government means-
(a) In cases where the sentence is for an offence against, or the order referred
to in sub-section (6) is passed under, any law relating to a matter to which
the executive power of the Union extends, the Central Government.
(b) In other cases, the Government of the State within which the offender is
sentenced or the said order is passed”.
1.1 The above power of remission of sentences under Section 432 is circumcised
by the provisions of 433-A which reads as under:
“Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases
– Notwithstanding anything contained in section 432, where a sentence of
imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for
which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence
of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 into one of
imprisonment for Life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he
had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment”.
2. Composition of the State Sentence Review Boards
Each State shall constitute a Review Board for the review of sentence awarded
to a prisoner and for recommending his premature release in appropriate cases.
The Review Board shall be a permanent body having the following constitution:
1. Minister in-charge, Jail Department/Principal Secretary, Chairman

Home; Principal Secretary in-charge of Jail Affairs/Law &
Order
2. Judicial Secretary/Legal Remembrancer Member
3. A District & Session Judge nominated by the High Court Member
4. Chief Probation Ofcer Member
5. A senior Police Ofcer nominated by the DG of Police not Member
below the rank of IG of Police
6. Inspector General of Prisons Member-
Secretary
56
The recommendation of the Sentence Review Board shall not be invalid

merely by reason of any vacancy in the Board or the inability of any Member to
attend the Board meeting. The meeting of the Board shall not however be held, if
the quorum is less than 4 Members including the Chairman.
Periodicity of the Board’s Meetings
The State Sentence Review Board shall meet at least once in a quarter at the
State Headquarters on date to be notied to Members at least ten days in advance
with complete agenda papers.
However, it shall be open to the Chairperson of the Board to convene a
meeting of the Board more frequently as may be deemed necessary.
3. Eligibility for Premature Release

The following category of inmates shall be eligible to be considered for
premature release by the State Review Boards:
Every convicted prisoner whether male or female undergoing sentence of life
imprisonment and covered by the post provisions of Section 433A Cr.P.C. shall
be eligible to be considered for premature release from the prison immediately
after serving out the sentence of 14 years of actual imprisonment i.e. without the
remissions.
All other convicted male prisoners undergoing the sentence of life
imprisonment shall be considered for premature release after they have served at
least 14 years of imprisonment inclusive of remission and after completion of 10
years actual imprisonment i.e. without remissions.
All other convicted female prisoners undergoing the sentence of life
imprisonment shall be considered for premature release after they have served
atleast 10 years of imprisonment inclusive of remissions and after completion of 7
Convicted prisoners undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment on
attaining the age of 65 years provided he or she has served atleast 7 years of
imprisonment including the remissions.
The convicted prisoners undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life
and who are suffering from terminal diseases like cancer, T.B., AIDS, irreversible
kidney failure, cardio respiratory disease, leprosy and any other infectious disease
etc. as certied by Board of Doctors on completion of 5 years of actual sentence or
7 years of sentence including remissions.
57
4. Inability for Premature Release

The following categories of convicted prisoners undergoing life sentence
may not be considered eligible for premature release:
4.1 Prisoners convicted of the offences such as rape, dacoity, terrorist crimes etc.
4.2 Prisoners who have been convicted for organised murders in a premeditated
manner and in an organised manner.
4.3 Professional murderers who have been found guilty of murder by hiring
them.
4.4 Convicts who commit murder while involved in smuggling operations or
having committed the murder of public servants on duty.
5. Procedure for Processing of the Cases for Consideration of the

Review Board
5.1 Every Superintendent of Central District Jail who has prisoner(s) undergoing
sentence of imprisonment for life shall initiate the case of the prisoner at least
3 months in advance of the date when the prisoner would become eligible for
consideration of premature release as per the criteria laid down by the State
Government in that behalf.
5.2 The Superintendent of Jail shall prepare a comprehensive note in each case
giving out the family and societal background of the prisoner, the offence for
which he was convicted and sentenced and the circumstances under which
the offence was committed. He will also reect fully about the conduct and
behaviour of the prisoner in the jail during the period of his incarceration,
behaviour/conduct during he period he was released on probation leave,
change in his behavioural pattern and the jail offences, if any, committed
by him and punishment awarded to him for such offence(s). A report shall
also be made about his physical/mental health or any serious ailment with
which the prisoner is suffering entitling his case special consideration for
his premature release. The note shall contain recommendation of the Jail
Superintendent whether he favours for the premature release of the prisoner
or not and in either case it shall be supported by adequate reasons.
5.3 The Superintendent of Jail shall make reference to the Superintendent of
Police of the district where the prisoner was ordinarily residing at the time
of the commission of the offence, for which he was convicted and sentenced,
or where he is likely to resettle after his release from the jail. However, in
case the place where the prisoner was ordinarily residing at the time of
commission of the offence is different from the place where he committed the
offence, a reference shall also be made to the Superintendent of Police of the
district in which the offence was committed. In either case, he shall forward
a copy of the note prepared by him to enable the Superintendent of Police to
58
express his views in regard to the desirability of the premature release of the
prisoner.
5.4 On receipt of the reference, the concerned Superintendent of Police shall
cause an inquiry to be made in the matter through senior police ofcer
of appropriate rank and based on his own assessment shall make his
recommendations. While making the recommendations the Superintendent
of Police shall not act mechanically and oppose the premature release of the
prisoner on untenable and hypothetical grounds/apprehensions. In case
the Superintendent of Police is not in favour of the premature release of the
prisoner he shall justify the same with cogent reasons and material. He shall
return the reference to the Superintendent of the concerned jail not later than
30 days from the receipt of the reference.
5.5 The Superintendent of Jail shall also make a reference to the Chief Probation
Ofcer of the State and shall forward to him a copy of his note. On receipt of the
reference, the Chief Probation Ofcer shall either hold or cause to be held an
inquiry through a Probation Ofcer in regard to the desirability of premature
release of the prisoner having regard to his family and social background, his
acceptability by his family members and the society, prospects of the prisoner
for rehabilitation and leading a meaningful life as a good citizen. He will not
act mechanically and recommend each and every case for premature release.
In either case he should justify his recommendation by reasons/material.
The Chief Probation Ofcer shall furnish his report/recommendations to the
Superintendent of Jail not later than 30 days from the receipt of the reference.
5.6 On receipt of the report/recommendations of the Superintendent of Police
and Chief Probation Ofcer the Superintendent of Jail shall put up the case
to the Inspector General of Prisons at least one month in advance of the
proposed meeting of the Sentence Review Board. The Inspector General of
Prisons shall examine the case bearing in mind the report/recommendations
of the Superintendent of Jail, Superintendent of Police and the Chief
Probation Ofcer and shall make his own recommendations with regard
to the premature release of the prisoner or otherwise keeping in view the
general or special guidelines laid down by the Government of the Sentence
Review Board. Regard shall also be had to various norms laid down and
guidelines given by the Apex Court and various High Courts in the matter of
premature release of prisoners.
6. Procedure and Guidelines for the Review Board

6.1 The Inspector General of Prisons shall convene a meeting of the Sentence
Review Board on a date and time at the State Headquarters, an advance
notice of which shall be given to the Chairman and Members of the Board at
least ten days in advance of the scheduled meeting and it shall accompany
the complete agenda papers i.e. the note of the Superintendent of Jail,
59
recommendations of Superintendent of Police, Chief Probation Ofcer and

that of the Inspector General of Prisons alongwith the copies of documents, if
any.
6.2 A meeting shall ordinarily be chaired by the Chairman and if for some
reasons he is unable to be present in the meeting, it shall be chaired by
the Judicial Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer. The Member Secretary
(Inspector General of Prisons) shall present the case of each prisoner under
consideration before the Sentence Review Board. The Board shall consider
the case and take a view. As far as practicable, the Sentence Revising Board
shall endeavour to make unanimous recommendation. However, in case of a
dissent the majority view shall prevail and will be deemed to be decision of
the Board.
6.3 While considering the case of premature release of a particular prisoner the
Board shall keep in view the general principles of amnesty/remission of the
sentences as laid down by the State Government or by Courts as also the earlier
precedents in the matter. The paramount consideration before the Sentence
Review Board being the welfare of the prisoner and the society at large. The
Board shall not ordinarily decline a premature release of a prisoner merely
on the ground that the police has not recommended his release on certain
far-fetched and hypothetical premises. The Board shall take into account
the circumstances in which the offence was committed by the prisoner and
whether he has the propensity and is likely to commit similar or other offence
again.
6.4 Rejection of the case of a prisoner for premature release on one or more
occasion by the Sentence Review Board will not be a bar for reconsideration of
his case. However, the consideration of the case of a convict already rejected
shall be done only after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of last
consideration of his case.
6.5 The recommendations of the Sentence Review Board shall be placed before
the competent authority without delay for consideration. The competent
authority may either accept the recommendations of the Sentence Review
Board or reject the same on the grounds to be stated or may ask the Sentence
Review Board to reconsider a particular case. The decision of the competent
authority shall be communicated to the concerned prisoner and in case the
competent authority has ordered to grant remission and order his premature
release, the prisoner shall be released forthwith with or without conditions.
7. Monitoring of Cases Through the Ofce of Chief Coordinator
of Custodial Justice Programme, NHRC
The Committee considers that while computerized records of all the prisoners
serving life sentence in the prisons of the country for a follow up of their cases by
the NHRC is extremely desirable, it does not presently seem to be feasible. Such a
60
monitoring could only be possible, with necessary infrastructural and manpower

support
Guidelines contained in the Model Prison Manual (2003)

The Model Prison Manual for the Superintendence and Management of
Prisons in India formulated by the Bureau of Police Research & Development,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 2003, suggested the following
guidelines for streamlining the system of premature release of prisoners:
Composition of the State Sentence Review Board

Each State shall constitute a Sentence Review Board to review the sentences
awarded to prisoners and for recommending premature release in appropriate
cases. This shall be a permanent body having the following members:
(i) Principal Secretary/Secretary Incharge of Prisons Chairman

(ii) Judicial Secretary/Legal Remembrancer Member
(iii) Director Probation Services/Chief Probation Ofcer Member
(iv) A Senior Police Ofcer nominated by the DGP/IGP of Member
the State
(v) Inspector General of Prisons (Head of Prisons Depart- Member
ment)
(vi) A Senior Prison Ofcer nominated by Secretary Member
Head of Prison Department (from among the senior most
cadre ofcers available in the State
Note: The NHRC is nalizing the guidelines regarding premature release. These guidelines
shall be incorporated as and when nalized by NHRC.
The cases put forward to the Sentence Review Board shall be reviewed even
when one or more members of the Board are not able to attend the meeting or
when there is a vacancy on the Board. The quorum shall comprise of 4 members
and the Board shall not take any decisions when the quorum is not complete.

The State Sentence Review Board shall meet at least once in two months at
the State Headquarter on a date to be notied to its members at least 10 days in
advance by the Inspector General of Prisons. The notice of such a meeting shall be
accompanied by complete agenda papers.
However, the Chairman of the Board can convene a meeting of the board
more frequently, even at short notices, if necessary.
61
Eligibility for Premature Release

The following categories of prisoners shall be eligible to be considered for a
review of sentences and premature release by the State Sentence Review Boards:
(i) Women offenders sentenced for infanticide: Their cases should be reviewed
immediately on admission in prison and they should be sent to the care of
voluntary organizations of good repute for a reasonable period of time.
(ii) Women offenders who have committed crime under compulsion and/or
under social and cultural pressures: their cases should also be reviewed
immediately on admission in prison for sending them to the care of voluntary
organizations of good repute.
(iii) Women offenders sentenced to life imprisonment: on completion of seven
years of imprisonment, including remission, except those covered under
Section 433-A of Cr. P.C., 1973 whose cases will be considered only after
completing 14 years of actual imprisonment.
(iv) Life convicts (men and adolescent offenders) on completion of 10 years of
imprisonment, including remission, except those covered under Section 433-
A of Cr. P.C., 1973, whose cases will be considered after completing 14 years
of actual imprisonment.
(v) Non-habitual male and adolescent offenders, (other than those sentenced
to imprisonment for life), sentenced to undergo more than one year of
imprisonment, on undergoing half of their substantive sentence, including
remission, subject to the condition that they shall not be actually released
unless they have undergone at least one year of sentence including remission.
(vi) Non-habitual women offenders, (other than those sentenced to imprisonment
for life), sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than one year, on
undergoing half of their substantive sentence, including remission, whichever
is less. This would be subject to the condition that they shall not be actually
released unless they have undergone at least one year’s imprisonment
including remission.
(vii) Habitual offenders, (other than those sentenced to imprisonment for life)
sentenced to ve years or more of imprisonment, on completion of two-
thirds of their sentence including remission, subject to the condition that
they shall not be released unless they have undergone at least ve years of
imprisonment including remission.
(viii)Prisoners convicted of offences such as rape, dacoity, terrorist crimes,
kidnapping, smuggling (including those convicted under NDPS Act),
Prevention of Corruption Act, Immoral Trafc Prevention Act, offences
against State, and undergoing life imprisonment, after completion of 14 years
of sentence inclusive of remission.
(ix) Prisoners convicted of offences mentioned in para (viii), other than those
62
sentenced to imprisonment for life, or to a term of imprisonment of ve

years and above, after completing three-fourths of the sentence including
remission, subject to the condition that they shall not be released unless they
have undergone at least ve years of sentence including remission.
(x) Old (above 65 years of age) and inrm offenders (other than those serving
life imprisonment) sentenced to imprisonment for one year and more, on
completion of one-third of the substantive sentence including remission,
subject to the condition that they shall not be actually released unless they
have undergone at least one year of imprisonment including remission.
(xi) Offenders certied by a designated Medical Board to be suffering from
incurable diseases likely to prove fatal, whenever such a situation arises.
Review Board
On admission into a prison of a prisoner eligible for eventual consideration
by the Board under the rules, the Superintendent shall write to the convicting
court for copies of the judgment of the original court as well as the appellate
courts. He shall also write to the District Magistrate of the district in which
the prisoner’s home is situated, or in which the prisoner usually resides, for
information regarding his/her antecedents.
(i) Every Superintendent in charge of a prison shall initiate the case of a prisoner
at least three months in advance of his/her becoming eligible for consideration
for premature release as per the criteria laid down by the State Government.
The Superintendent of Prison shall prepare a comprehensive note for each
prisoner, giving his/her family and societal background, the offence for
which he/she was convicted and sentenced, and the circumstances under
which the offence was committed. The Superintendent shall also reect fully
on the conduct and behaviour of the prisoner in the prison during the period
of his/her incarceration, and during his/her release on probation/leave,
change in his/her behavioural pattern, and prison offences, if any, committed
by him/her and punishment awarded to him/her for such offences. A report
shall also be made about his/her physical and mental health or any serious
ailment with which the prisoner is suffering, entitling him/her for premature
release as a special case. The note shall also contain recommendation of the
Superintendent, i.e., whether he favours the premature release of the prisoner
or not. In either case such recommendation shall be supported by adequate
reasons.
(ii) The Superintendent shall make a reference to the District Magistrate/
Superintendent of Police of the district where the prisoner was residing
at the time of committing the offence (for which he/she was convicted
and sentenced) or where he/she is likely to resettle after release from the
prison. However, in case the place of his/her residence is not where he/
63
she committed the offence, a reference shall also be made to the District
Magistrate/Superintendent of Police of the district in which the offence was
committed. The Superintendent shall forward a copy of the note to enable the
District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police to express their views regarding
the desirability of the premature release of the prisoner.
(iii) On receipt of the reference, the concerned District Magistrate/Superintendent
of Police shall have an inquiry made in the matter through senior ofcers
of appropriate ranks and shall make their recommendations based on their
assessment from such inquiry. While making the recommendations the
District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police shall not act mechanically and
oppose the premature release of a prisoner on untenable and hypothetical
assumptions. In case the Superintendent of Police is not in favour of
premature release of the prisoner, he shall justify the same with cogent and
material reasons. They shall return the reference to the Superintendent of the
concerned prison within 30 days of the receipt of the reference.
(iv) The Superintendent of Prison shall also make a reference to the Probation
Ofcer in charge of the district. On receipt of the reference, the Probation
Ofcer in charge shall either hold an enquiry, or get an enquiry done
through a Probation Ofcer, for the desirability of premature release of the
prisoner, taking into consideration his family and social background, his/her
acceptability by his/her family members and the society, prospects of his/her
rehabilitation and leading a meaningful life as a good citizen. While giving
the report the Probation Ofcer will not act mechanically and recommend
each and every case for premature release. In every case the Probation Ofcer
should justify his/her recommendation with cogent and material reasons.
The Probation Ofcer shall furnish his/her report/ recommendations to the
Superintendent of the prison within 30 days of the receipt of the reference.
(v) On receipt of the report/recommendations of the District Magistrate/
Superintendent of Police and the Probation Ofcer, the Superintendent of the
prison shall put up the case to the Inspector General of Prisons at least one
month in advance of the proposed meeting of the Sentence Review Board.
The Inspector General of Prisons shall examine the case, bearing in mind the
report/ recommendations of the Superintendent of the Prison, the District
Magistrate/ Superintendent of Police, and the Probation Ofcer, and make
his/her recommendations regarding the premature release of a prisoner or
otherwise. While doing so he/she shall keep in view the general or special
guidelines laid down by the government for the Sentence Review Board. The
various norms laid down and guidelines given by the Supreme Court of India
and various High Courts in the matter of premature release of prisoners shall
also be given due consideration.
64
Other Cases of Premature Release

When a convicted prisoner, in the opinion of a Medical Board, is in danger of
death from sickness (not due to an infectious disease) with no hope of recovery
within or outside the prison, the Superintendent shall report the fact to the
Inspector General of Prisons if it is considered desirable to allow such prisoner
the comfort of dying at home.
If the unexpired period of the prisoner’s sentence does not exceed six months,
the Inspector General of Prisons may direct his/her immediate release, after
making personal inquiries into the case and consulting the District Magistrate of
that district.
If the unexpired period of the prisoner’s sentence exceeds six months, the
Inspector General of Prisons shall immediately report the facts of the case, along
with his recommendations, to the Government.
No prisoner, without any friends or relatives willing to take charge of him/
her, shall be released under this rule.
This rule shall not apply to a prisoner who goes on a hunger strike. A prisoner
on hunger strike shall in no circumstances be released.
If a Medical Board considers that a convicted prisoner is in danger of dying
from illness (not due to an infectious disease), and that there is a probability of
his/her recovery when released, he shall furnish a certicate to that effect. On
receipt of the certicate the Superintendent shall immediately report the fact
to the Inspector General of Prisons. He shall also at the same time send for the
prisoner’s relatives or friends and ascertain whether they are willing to look after
him. If so, he shall take from them a security bond to the effect that in the event of
the prisoner being prematurely released on account of illness, they will give him/
her up at any time they may be required to do.
If the unexpired period of sentence of the prisoner does not exceed two
years, the Inspector General of Prisons may direct his/her immediate release after
making personal inquiries into the case and consulting the concerned District
Magistrate.
If the unexpired sentence of the prisoner exceeds two years, the Inspector
General of Prisons shall immediately report the facts of the case with his
recommendations, to the Government.
If the unexpired portion of the sentence exceeds two years, or if the Inspector
General of Prisons thinks the prisoner should not be released, he shall report the
facts of the case, with his opinion, to the government for orders.
If a prisoner detained solely under a sentence of Imprisonment in default of
furnishing security to maintain peace or for good behaviour, is so seriously ill
65
that he/she is likely to die, whatever be the term of his unexpired sentence, the
Superintendent shall refer the case to the District Magistrate of the District, in case
the order is passed by an Executive Magistrate, or to the Court of Sessions, in case
the order has been passed by a Judicial Magistrate, for necessary orders of release
under Section 123 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Every case of release under these rules shall immediately be reported to the
Inspector General, who shall report to the Government all such releases that have
been made without the special sanction of the government. A descriptive roll of
the prisoner released shall also be submitted in duplicate along with such report.
If the friends or relatives of a sick or dying prisoner, whose release has
been sanctioned under above rules, express their inability to meet the expenses
of a journey to the prison, the prisoner may be transferred, if t to travel, in
anticipation of sanction of the Head of Prisons Department/ Inspector General,
to the prison of the district where he/she shall stay, provided that no prisoner
shall be so transferred to any district beyond the jurisdiction of the State without
the special sanction of the State Government concerned.
In the event of such a prisoner dying before he/she can be released, the death
shall be recorded in the records of the prison from which he/she was transferred.
Procedure and Guidelines for the Review Board

The Head of Prisons Department/ Inspector General of Prisons shall
convene a meeting of the Sentence Review Board on a xed date and time at
the State Headquarters. Notice of such meeting shall be given to the Chairman
and Members of the Board at least ten days in advance and such notice shall be
accompanied by complete agenda papers, i.e. the note of the Superintendent of
Prison, recommendations of the District Magistrate/ Superintendent of Police/
Probation Ofcer and that of the Inspector General of Prisons along with copies
of other necessary documents, if any.
The meeting shall ordinarily be chaired by the Chairman and if, for some
reasons, he/she is unable to be present, it shall be chaired by the Judicial Secretary-
cum-Legal Remembrancer. The member Secretary shall present the case of each
prisoner under consideration before the Sentence Review Board. The Board shall
consider each case and give its views. As far as practicable, the Sentence Review
Board shall make unanimous recommendations. However, in case of dissent, the
majority view shall prevail and will be deemed to be the decision of the Board. If
equal numbers of members are of opposing views, the decision of the Chairman
will be nal.
While considering the case of premature release of a particular prisoner
the Board shall keep in view the general principles of amnesty, remission
of sentences, as laid down by the State Government or by the Courts, as also
66
the earlier precedents in the matter. The paramount consideration before the
Sentence Review Board, being the welfare of the prisoner and the society at large.
The Board shall not ordinarily decline a premature release of a prisoner merely
on the ground that the police have not recommended his/her release on certain
far-fetched and hypothetical assumptions. The Board shall take into account the
circumstances in which the offence was committed by the prisoner and whether
he/she has the propensity to commit similar or other offences again.
Rejection of the case of a prisoner for premature release on one or more
occasions by the Sentence Review Board will not be a bar for its reconsideration.
However, the reconsideration of the case of a convict, rejected once, shall be done
only after a period of one year, or as specied by Review Board, but not more
than three years from the date of its last consideration. A fresh report from the
Superintendent will be necessary for such reconsideration. However, fresh reports
from the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and Probation Ofcer will
be required after ve years only. Reconsideration of the case will be done on the
basis of the conduct of the prisoner in the intervening period, rather than on the
material on the basis of which his/her case was rejected earlier.
The recommendation of the Sentence Review Board shall be placed before
the competent authority without any delay for consideration. The competent
authority may either accept the recommendations of the Sentence Review Board
or reject the same on the grounds to be stated or may ask the Sentence Review
Board to reconsider a particular case. The decision of the competent authority
shall be communicated to the concerned prisoner and in case the competent
authority has ordered to grant remission, and order his premature release, the
prisoner shall be released forthwith (with or without conditions).
A computerised record of all the prisoners serving sentence in the prisons, for
a follow up of their cases, is extremely desirable in every prison as well as at the
Prisons Headquarters at the Home or Prison Department of the State Government.
The monitoring system should be based on the following guidelines.
(i) There should be a single le system for the case of every prisoner. Such les
shall be maintained at the prison institution.
(ii) This le will have a complete record of information regarding the
consideration of a prisoner’s premature release on any grounds on previous
occasions and the date of reconsideration of the case.
(iii) Only one ground for a prisoner’s premature release shall be considered at a
time.
(iv) Full record of information regarding the stage of each prisoner’s premature
release shall be kept in a register prescribed for the purpose as well in
computers.
(v) Monitoring of all cases shall be done every month at the prison level, every
67
three months at Prisons Headquarter level and every six months at the
Government level.
Record Relating to Review of Sentences and Premature Release

Immediately on admission of a convict, eligible for being considered for
premature release, the Superintendent of the institution should get a copy of the
judgement in his/her case from the court and open a le. This le should contain:
(i) Copies of the judgements of the original court and the appellate court.
(ii) A data sheet containing information, viz. Name of the convict, his/her
number, age at the time of the sentence, previous occupation, offences,
sentences, date of sentence, sentencing court, sentence undergone, unexpired
sentence and remission earned.
(iii) History of his/her family background, economic background, habits,
attitudes, etc.
(iv) Report of the Superintendent giving particulars about the educational
progress, performance at work and vocational training, interest in recreational
and cultural activities, discipline, group adjustability, conduct, attitude
towards society and family members, conduct during release on leave, need
for an after-care programme, and the manner in which the convict proposes
to resettle after his/her premature release.
(v) Medical report about the physical and mental condition of the offender,
serious illness, if any, suffered by him/her, and his/her tness for premature
release.
(vi) Opinion of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police of district of
residence, or of the place of committing the crime, about the suitability of the
offender for premature release.
(vii) Report from the Probation Ofcer or any other agency, about the after-care
programme for the convict.
(viii) Recommendation of the Institutional Classication Committee.
(ix) Recommendation of the Review Board.
(x) Order of the government.
(xi) Bond furnished by the prisoner.
(xii) Conditions of release duly signed by the prisoner.
68
Chapter- 5
International Response on the Premature

Release System
In order to understand the international system of few countries regarding
the system of premature release of prisoners abroad, some experts were contacted
in different countries and the experts mentioned below responded and shared
their views:
Name of the Expert Organization and Country
Mr. Mark Shaw Criminal Justice Reform Unit, United Nations
Chief, Corrections Ofce of Drugs and Crime, Austria
Mr. Robert B. Cormier Public Safety and Emerging Preparedness,
Senior Director Canada
Keith Shiers Community Justice Services, Department of
General Manager Justice, Perth, Australia
Dr. Peter Johnston Department of Corrections, Wellington, New
Manager, Strategic Analysis Zealand
Lisbet Heine Bars Department of Prisons and Probation, Ministry
of Justice, Denmark
Marjun a’ Lad The Crime Prevention Council in Denmark
Deputy Director
Bronwyn Donaldson Policy Development, Department of Corrections,
Acting General Manager NewZealand
Dr. Judy Dutt Australian Institute of Criminology, Australian
Research Manager Government, Australia
Marianne Hobbgaard Justits Ministeriet Direktoratet for
Kriminalforsorglrs, Denmark
Rachel Aalders Department of Justice, Corrective Services
A/Policy Support Ofcer Division, Tasmania
Mark W. Lipsey Centre for Evaluation Research and
Director Methodology, Nashville, USA
Edward Latessa Division of Criminal Justice, University of
Head Cincinnati, USA
Prof. Marc Renzema Kutztown University, Kutztown PA, USA
Dr. Mark Brown Deaprtment of Criminology
The University of Melbourne, Australia
Concerning premature release of prisoners in Denmark

Pursuant to section 38(1) of the Danish Criminal Code (straffeloven), an
inmate may be released on parole at the completion of two-thirds of the sentence,
but not less than two months. Release on parole pursuant to section 38(1) of
69
the criminal code is presupposed as a regular part of the enforcement of prison

sentences of three months or more.
1. However, pursuant to section 38(2) of the Criminal code, an inmate may be
released on parole already at the completion of half the sentence, but not less
than two months, when special circumstances so warrant.
 The following provides an account of the various possibilities for release
on parole pursuant to section 38(2) of the Criminal code. The cases in
which practice dictates a restriction in the possibility of early release
have been specied.
 A foreign inmate who is to be expelled may be released on parole at the
completion on 7/12 of the sentence, but not less than two months, if a
time-limited probhition of re-entry applies to the expulsion.
 A foreign inmate who is to be expelled with a permanent probhition of
re-entry may be released on parole at the completion of half the sentence,
but not less than two months.
 However, in both cases it is a condition that release on parole is not
inadvisable, which means that there must be no risk that the inmate will
relapse into more than trivial crime. Another condition is that the inmate
wants early release on parole, and it must also be possible promptly to
implement the expulsion of the inmate.
Release may be possible if there are good prospects of work, education
or housing that would otherwise be forfeited. In that case the inmate
may be released on parole about one month before completion of two-
thirds of the sentence.
Release may be possible if there are weighty humanitarian considerations,
such as the inmate's poor health, the serious illness of his spouse or
children or other circumstances in the home resulting in the assessment
that continued incarceration would lead to serious harmful effects for
the family.
 Release may be possible if, upon a concrete assessment, it is continued
incarceration would lead
(a) Inmates who were under the age of 18 at the time of the offence may be
released, unless release is considered clearly inadvisable.
(b) The inmate may be released if he was under the age of 24 when he committed
the offence, if he has not previouly served a prison sentence, and if he is now
serving a prison sentence of less than two years for non-dangerous offences.
(c) The following elements may also be taken into consideration in the case:
- that the inmate was under the age of 21 or over the age of 50 when he
committed the offence;
70
International Response on the Premature Release System
- that the inmate has not previously served a prison sentence and has
not been conditionally discharged or subject to suspended sentence.
In this connection, an inmate is considered a rst-time offender if ve
years have passed since the completion, nal remission or lapse of any
previous sentence;
- that the sentence is long, and that the time of release is considered
suitable following a long-term pre-release programme;
- that the inmate was held in pre-trial custody during the criminal
proceedings for a long time in proportion to the sentence imposed;
- that continued enforcement of the sentence will presumably be harmful
from a special preventive view with respect to the particular inmate.
In the overall assessment of a case on early release on parole, the type or
extent of the crime involved will not generally be emphasised. However, it may
be an element against release on parole pursuant to section 38(2) if the inmate was
sentenced for a dangerous crime, such as aggravated drug offences, aggravated
assault or robbery.
It is a condition for the release that the risk of re-offending is deemed to be
low.
The prison has the authority to make the decision of early release on parole in
the cases mentioned in para. 1(a), unless the inmate is serving a prison sentence of
eight years or more. In that case, the Department of Prisons and Probation makes
the decision upon recommendation by the prison.
The Department of Prisons and Probation makes all decisions on release on
parole in the cases mentioned in paras. 1(b) to 1(h). These decisions are made
upon recommendation by the institution.
2. On 1 April 2004, an amendment of the Criminaly Code provided authority
for earlier release on parole of specic groups of inmates in accordance with
the “give and take” principle.
Firstly the amendment implies that convicted inmates who make a special
effort during their incarceration not to commit any new crimes be released on
parole when they have served half their sentence, but at least four months (section
40a(a) of the Criminal Code).
These are cases where, for example, the inmate submits to treatment for
alcohol or drug abuse or attends an education or higher education programme
in the prison. In such cases, release on parole is normally subject to the parolee’s
observance of special conditions (such as continued treatment or continued
studies).
Secondly, the amendment implies that inmates in a good personal situation
may be released on parole after having served half their sentence, but at least
71
four months, where it is deemed unnecessary upon an overall assessment that

they serve the remainder of their sentence in prison if a condition of community
service is imposed instead (section 40s (1) (ii) of the Criminal Code).
In consideration of the public sense of justice, very considerable caution
should be exercised when granting early release on parole to inmates serving
sentences for the most serious crimes.
The “give and take” scheme results in the vacation of some prison places. In
2004 the “give and take” scheme vacated 18 places, and in the rst nine months
of 2005 38 places have been vacated.
The Department of Prisons and Probation makes all decisions on release
on parole pursuant to section 40a of the criminal upon recommendation by the
prison.
3. All cases of release on parole are electreonically processed in the so-called
“client system” which implies faster processing than the conventional paper-
based procedure.
Perception on Premature Release

 Policy and procedure of the system of premature release of prisoners:
 Under Tasmanian legislation, a prisoner may be prematurely released on
parole. Information on parole, including the establishment of the parole
board and eligibility for parole can be found in Part 8 of the Corrections Act
1997. This section is discussed in this chapter.
 Positive/negative aspects of the premature release of prisoners:
The Tasmania Prison Service is unable to comment on aspects of premature
release. An independent statutory body (the Tasmanian Parole Board) makes
decisions regarding parole. The Tasmanian Prison Service has no involvement
in decisions regarding parole and the Prison Service’s involvement in parole
is limited to providing administrative support to the Parole Board.
 Problems faced by the prison department in making the decision regarding
the premature release of prisoners?
As noted above, the Prison Service does not make decisions regarding the
release of prisoners on parole.
 Streamlining the system of pre-mature release of prisoners
The Tasmania Prisoner Service is unable to comment on the current system
of parole.
 If the system of premature release of prisoners is to be streamlined, what
role do you envisage for the following: the prison service and the state
government?
The Tasmania Prison Service is unable to comment on the role of the State
72
Government in the premature release of prisoners. The only role that the Tasmania
Prison Service plays in regard to parole is to ensure that the order of the Parole
Board is carried out and that the prisoner is released on the date set by the Board.
Prisoner re-entry to the community

Incarceration produces short-term reductions in crime while in prison an
offender simply cannot commit crime in the community. A longer-term crime
reduction benet is produced if those same offenders do not re-offend after they
are released. However, the experience of prison is often not a sufcient deterrent
against future crime, and prison statistics show that in Australia and overseas,
many ex-prisoners go on to commit new offences.
Managing a prisoner’s return to the community can positively impact
upon the likelihood of their re-offending. This is because for many, the social,
economic, physical and psychological problems they confront when they leave
prison can be substantial impediments to leading crime-free lives. Effective re-
entry management addresses not just the moment of re-entry, but also the times
leading up to and following release. It is best seen as a transitional process that
can and should involve a range of stakeholders beyond correctional authorities
and individual offenders. This is because prisoner’s problems are complex, varied
and often outside the scope of a single justice agency. Experience has shown
that managing effective re-entry initiatives can be very difcult for the agencies
involved.
A comprehensive publication recently produced by the United States Re-
entry policy council details principles for planning and managing prisoner re-
entry. It identies the following components of the re-entry process:
 planning a re-entry imitative;
 admission to a correctional facility;
 prison-based programming;
 making release decisions;
 managing the key transition period;
 community supervision; and
 elements of effective social service systems
The report’s structure mirrors the stages involved in implementing re-entry
initiatives, from overall program planning to actual prisoner re-entry. Policy
statements are listed at each stage, and each statement is supplemented by a
description of related research, statistics, theory and/or practice, and resulting
recommendations. The report provides useful insight into prisoner re-entry
73
issues that may be relevant to an Australian context.

 Please provide the details of the policy and procedure of the system of
Premature release of prisoners in your country. (Kindly attach the copy of
the relevant provisions and procedures being followed.).
Details of how prison inmates’ early release on parole is managed can be
found at the following web address:
http://www.paroleboard.govt.nz/nzpb/index.html
The actual legislation governing parole is available at:
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2001/sentence reform/part
3.html
Information about how the Department of Corrections prepares inmates for
an appearance before the Parole Board can be found at:
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public /policyandlegislation/ppm/
sectiona/a13/
 Kindly state your views on the positive/negative aspects of the premature
release of prisoners
Positive Aspects
The primary benet of parole is the ability to continue managing an offender
after the person leaves prison-being able to monitor their progress and safety,
and to ensure that they are given the assistance they need to make a successful
reintegration.
Early release on parole also means that offenders are not kept longer in prison
than is necessary for the purpose of incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation
and/or punishment.
Negative Aspects
There have been occasions when offenders have re-offended seriously while
on parole, which can create a negative public perception of the Parole Board and
the Department of Corrections.
When inmates are denied early release on parole, their morale and motivation
can be adversely affected.
It is often difcult to satisfy the wishes of victims or victim support agencies
when deciding to release offenders.
 What are the problems faced by the prison department in taking the decision
regarding premature release of prisoners?
Note that decisions to release on parole in New Zealand are made by the
Parole Board, which is a body independent of the prison system. Difculties
74
faced in the process of parole decisions include:

Ensuring that all necessary information about the offender’s progress and
future plans are available to the Parole Board in a timely manner
Accurately assessing risk of re-offending
Ensuring that an adequate release plan (satisfactory accommodation,
employment plans, resolution of family difculties, adequate social supports)
is available for the offender
 Do you think that the system of premature release of prisoners needs to be
streamlined?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
If the system of premature release of prisoners is to be streamlined, what role
do you envisage for the following:
The Jail Department
The State Department
 Any other suggestions that you deem t
With regard to your request for reports, documents etc relating to the system
of rehabilitation and after care used by our Department, I would also draw
your attention to the following area of our website, which contains links to a
number of reports which are relevant:
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/research/
75
Tasmanian Legislation
Corrections Act 1997 (No. 51 of 1997)
Part 8-Parole
Division 1-Parole Board

62. Establishment of Parole Board
(1) The Parole Board is established.
(2) The Board consists of 3 persons appointed by the Governor, of whom-
(a) one is to be a person who has practised as a legal practitioner or
barrister of the Supreme Court or of a Supreme Court of any part of the
Commonwealth other than this State for at least 7 years and has never
been suspended from practice, had his or her name removed from, or
struck off the roll of that Court or been disbarred; and
(b) 2 are to be persons who the Governor is satised, are experienced in
matters associated with sociology, criminology, penology or medicine
or who possess any other knowledge or experience that the Governor
considers is appropriate for the purpose.
(3) The chairperson of the Board is to be appointed by the Governor from
among the members of the Board.
(4) Schedule 2 has effect in respect of the membership and meetings of the
Board.
63. Powers of Board

(1) For the purposes of this Act, the Board may-
(a) By summons signed by the secretary of the Board, require any person to
attend before the board; and
(b) Require any person to give oral or written answers to any questions
relating to any matter before the board; and
(c) By summons signed by the secretary of the Board, require any person to
produce and document in the person’s possession or control relating to
any matter before the Board; and
(d) Examine a witness on oath afrmation which may be administered by
any member of the Board; and
(e) Require any information given to the Board to be veried by statutory
declaration.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if the person-
(a) Having been duly served with a summons to attend before the Board,
76
neglects or fails to attend, without reasonable excuse, in answer to the

summons; or
(b) Wilfully insults the Board or a member of the Board; or
(c) Misbehaves himself before the Board; or
(d) Interrupts the proceedings of the Board; or
(e) Having been called or examined as a witness before the Board, refuses
to be sworn or to afrm, refuses to answer any question that the person
would be compellable to answer in a court or refuses to produce a
document specied in a summons served on the person.
Penalty:
Fine not exceeding 10 penalty units or imprisonment for a term not exceeding
6 months.
(3) For the purpose of any business before it, the Board may-
(a) Appoint a member of the Board to make an investigation or inquiry and
may consider the report of that investigation or inquiry made by the
member; and
(b) Consider the report of an investigation or inquiry made by any other
person who it is satised is competent to make that investigation or
inquiry; and
(c) Rely on the knowledge of a member of the Board, howsoever that
knowledge is gained.
64. Reports
(1) The Board is to, not later than 31 October after the end of each nancial year;
make a written report to the Minister of-
(a) the number of prisoners released on parole during that nancial year
and the number of prisoners returned to prison by reason of revocation
of their release on parole; and
(b) the general activities of the Board under this Act during that nancial
year and any matters affecting the operation of this Act that Board thinks
appropriate to include in the report.
(2) The Minister, as soon as practicable, is to lay before each House of Parliament
a copy of any report made under subsection (1)
(3) The Board, whenever so required by the Minister, is to furnish the Minister
with a report on any matter in connection with the administration of this Act
on which the Minister has required the report.
65. Judicial notice

(1) If a document purports to bear signature of a member of the Board or the
77
secretary of the Board, a court or a person acting judicially is to presume, in

the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the signature of the member or
secretary has been duly afxed to the document.
An apparently genuine document purporting to record a determination or
decision of the Board and purporting to be signed by the secretary of the Board
in the absence of evidence to the contrary is to be taken as proof that such a
determination or decision has been duly made by the Board.
66. Secretary and other ofcers

(1) The Board may make arrangements with the Secretary for a State Service
ofcer or State Service employee employed in the Department to be appointed
secretary of the Board, and that ofcer or employee may hold that ofce in
conjunction with State Service employment.
(2) The Board may make arrangements with the Secretary for such State Service
ofcers and State Service employees employed in the Department as the
Board may consider necessary to be made available to the Board to perform
its functions, and those ofcers and employees may, in conjunction with
State Service employment, serve the Board in any capacity.
67. Protection of members of Boards and other persons

No liability attaches to a member of the Board, the secretary of the Board
or a State Service ofcer or State Service employee whose services used by the
Board pursuant to section 66(2) for any act or omission by such a person or by the
Board in good faith and in the exercise or purported exercise of the person’s or
the Board’s powers or functions, or in the discharge or purported discharge of the
person’s or the Board’s duties, under this Act.
Division 2 – Eligibility for parole
68. Statutory non-parole period

(1) The non-parole period in respect of a sentence of imprisonment is a period
equal to one-half of the period of the operative sentence.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to-
(a) A sentence of imprisonment for the term of the natural life of the prisoner;
or
(b) Detention in accordance with an order under section 19 of the sentencing
Act 1997.
69. Prisoner not to be released on parole in certain circumstances

(1) A prisoner who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment is not to be
released on parole in respect of that sentence if-
78
(a) The court has ordered that the prisoner is ineligible for parole pursuant
to section 17 to 18 of the sentencing Act 1997; or
(b) The prisoner is ineligible for parole by operation of section 17(3A) of that
Act.
(2) If a prisoner is made the subject of a declaration under section 19 of the
sentencing Act 1997, the prisoner is not eligible to be released on parole until
the declaration is discharged under that Act.
70. Where prisoner eligible for parole

Subject to section 71, a prisoner is not to be released on parole before the
completion of-
the non-parole period applicable to the prisoner’s sentence; or
a continuous period of imprisonment of 6 months-
Whichever is the greater, unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are
exceptional circumstances warranting the earlier release on parole of the prisoner.
71. Prisoner subject to more than one non-parole period or other

minimum term
(1) In this section-
“Designated sentence” means-
 a sentence of imprisonment to which a non-parole period is applicable
or in respect of which the prisoner is ineligible for parole by operation of
section 17 (3A) of the sentencing Act 1997; or
 a sentence of imprisonment to which an order under section 17 (2) (a) of
the Sentencing Act 1997 is applicable;
“Minimum term”, in relation to a designated sentence, means-
in the case of a sentence to which a non-parole period is applicable, that
non-parole period; or
In any other case, the sentence itself.
(2) If, at any time, a person is subject to 2 or more designated sentences-
(a) the minimum terms relating to those designated sentences, subject to
subsections (3) and (4), are to be cumulative upon, or concurrent with,
each other in like manner as the sentences to which they relate; and
(b) the completion by a person of the non-parole period applicable to a
sentence to which the person is subject is not to be taken into account for
the purposes of section 70 if, at the time of completion of that non-parole
period, the person has not completed the minimum relating to any other
designated sentence to which the person is subject.
79
(3) For the purposes to subsection (2) if, at any time, a person is subject to 2 or
more sentences that are to be served concurrently, being sentences to each
of which, but for this subsection, a non-parole period would be applicable
under section 68, those sentences are to be taken to be collectively subject to
a single non-parole period.
(4) The single non-parole period referred to in subsection (3) is to be ascertained
in accordance with section 68 as if the sentences to which the person is subject
comprised a single sentence of imprisonment for a period equal to the total
period of imprisonment to which the person is sentenced as a result to those
sentences being served concurrently.
(5) If, under subsection (2), the minimum term in relation to a designated sentence
is cumulative upon the minimum term in relation to another such sentence,
the later minimum term is to be taken to commence upon the expiration of
the earlier minimum term, notwithstanding that the earlier sentence has not
been completed.
72. Release on parole

(1) If a prisoner is eligible to be released on parole, the Board is to consider
whether the prisoner should be so released before the date on which the
prisoner becomes eligible to be released on parole.
(2) A prisoner whose release on parole is being considered under subsection
(1) may be heard personally on the matter by the Board if the Board is
determined.
(2A) If the Board is to consider the release on parole of a prisoner, the Board is
to request the Secretary, in writing, to search the victim register and advise
the Board of the names of all victims listed in the register in respect of the
prisoner specied in the request.
(2B) On receipt of a request under subsection (2A), the Secretary is to search the
victim register and, if a victim is listed in it in respect of the prisoner specied
in the request, the Secretary is to notify each such victim, in writing, that-
the release of the prisoner on parole is to be considered by the Board;
and
the victim may provide to the Board, within 30 days after receiving the
notice, a written statement that-
(i) gives particulars of any injury, loss or damage suffered by the victim as
a direct result of the offence; and
(ii) describes the effects on the victim of the commission of the offence.
(2C) After notifying a victim under subsection (2B), the secretary is to notify the
Board, in writing of-
(a) the name of that victim; and
80
(b) The date on which the notice to the victim was given under that
subsection.
(2D) if a search of the victims register under subsection (2B) discloses that no
victim is listed in the register, the Secretary is to notify the Board, in writing,
of that fact.
(2E) If the Board has received notice from the Secretary to the effect that the
Secretary has notied one or more victims under subsection (2B), the Board
is not to consider whether the prisoner should be released on parole until the
rst of the following occurs:
All victims so notied have provided the Board with written statement;
The expiry of the period of 30 days in which the last victim so notied may
provide a statement under subsection (2B).
(3) The Board may-
(a) Order that a prisoner as is released on parole-
(i) at such time as is specied in the order; and
(ii) For such period as the Board considers appropriate and as is
specied in the order; or
(b) Defer making a decision on whether or not the prisoner should be
released on parole; or
(c) Refuse to release the prisoner on parole.
(4) In determining whether or not a prisoner should be released on parole, the
Board is to take into consideration-
(a) The likeli hood of the prisoner re-offending; and
(b) The protection of the public; and
(c) The rehabilitation of the prisoner; and
(d) Any remarks made by the court in passing sentence; and
(e) The likelihood of the prisoner complying with the conditions; and
(f) The circumstances and gravity of the offence, or offences, for which the
prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment; and
(g) The behaviour of the prisoner while in prison; and
(h) The behaviour of the prisoner during any previous release on parole;
and
(I) the behaviour of the prisoner while subject to any order of a court; and
(j) Any report tendered to the Board on the social background of the
prisoner, the medical, psychological or psychiatric condition of the
prisoner or any other matter relating to the prisoner; and
(k) The probable circumstances of the prisoner after release from prison;
81
and
(Ka) any statement provided under subsection (2B) by a victim of an offence
for which the prisoner has been sentenced to imprisonment; and
(I) any other matters that the Board thinks are relevant.
(5) A Parole order is subject to such terms and conditions as the Board considers
necessary and as are specied in the order.
(6) The Board may, at any time before the release of a prisoner under a parole
order, revoke or amend the order.
(7) If the Board makes an order under subsection (3) (a)
(a) It is to cause notice of the order to be given to the prisoner in such manner
as it considers appropriate; and
(b) It is to publish its reasons for the order and is to give a copy of the reasons
to any victim who has provided a statement under subsection (2B)
(7A) Before publishing the reasons and giving a copy of them to a victim, the
Board may delete any material that relates to the privacy of the prisoner
or of any other person if the Board is of the opinion that it is in the
interests of the prisoner or any other person to do so.
(8) If the Board defers making a decision on whether or not a prisoner should
be released on parole or refuses to release a prisoner on parole, it is to cause
notice of its decision in writing to be given to the prisoner and, where it
refuses parole, its reasons for so refusing.
(9) If the Board is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of the prisoner,
any other person or the public to withhold from the prisoner any or all of the
reasons referred to in subsection (8), the Board may withhold the reasons
from the prisoner.
(10) If the Board refuses to release a prisoner on parole, the Board may not further
consider the release of the prisoner on parole until the expiration of 3 months
from the date of the last refusal.
(11) In this section,
“Victims register” means a register kept by the Secretary in which a victim
of an offence in respect of which the offender has been sentenced to a term of
imprisonment may have his or her name listed at his or her request.
73. Orders and documents signed on behalf of Board

(1) A member of the Board or the Secretary of the Board may, on behalf of
the Board, sign and issue all orders and documents relating to a matter
determined by the Board.
(2) An order or document signed by a member of the Board or the Secretary of
the Board has effect as if it were signed by all members of the Board.
82
74. Reports on prisoners eligible for parole

(1) The Director may cause reports to be prepared on all prisoners eligible for
parole.
(2) The Board may request any person to provide and furnish it with a report.
(3) Subject to subsection (5), a prisoner in respect of whom a report has been
provided to the Board is entitled, on request, to see a copy of the report.
(4) A person who prepared the report may request the Board to withhold a
report or part of the report from the prisoner.
(5) The Board may, after considering the request of a person who prepared a
report or of its own motion, withhold the report or part of the report from the
prisoner.
75. Period of parole

The period of parole ordered by the Board under section 72 applies to the
release of a prisoner notwithstanding that the total of that period and the period
of the sentence of imprisonment that he or she has already served at the time of
his or her release exceeds the full term of that sentence.
76. Sentences for offences committed during release on parole

(1) If a prisoner is sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed during
the period of his or her release on parole, that sentence is, subject to subsection
(2), to be cumulative on the remainder of the sentence in respect of which the
prisoner was released on parole.
(2) If the court is of the opinion that the special circumstances make it desirable
to do so, it may order that the whole or part of the sentence of imprisonment
for an offence committed during the period of a prisoner’s release on parole
is to be concurrent with the remainder of the sentence in respect of which the
prisoner was released on parole.
77. Effect of parole orders

(1) A parole ofcer is sufcient authority to the Director and any person having
the custody or control of the prisoner to whom the order applies to release
the prisoner in accordance with the term of the order.
(2) A prisoner who is released under a parole order is, while on parole, under
the supervision of a probation ofcer.
(3) A Prisoner who is released under a parole order must, while on parole,
comply with any terms and conditions to which the order is subject and with
such requirements as may be made of the prisoner by the probation ofcer.
(4) Notwithstanding subsection (2) the Board may-
83
(a) in circumstances that it considers exceptional, direct that a prisoner who is

released under a parole order is not required to be under the supervision of
a probation ofcer; or
(b) if it considers that it is unreasonable or unnecessary for a prisoner released
under a parole order to be under the supervision of a probation ofcer for
the whole of the period the prisoner is on parole, direct that the prisoner so
released is required to be under the supervision of a probation ofcer only
for such part of that period as the Board species in its direction.
78. Prisoner on parole taken to be still under sentence

(1) During the period of parole granted to a prisoner under a parole order, the
prisoner is taken as being still under sentence.
(2) Subject to subsection 3 and section 79(30 and 80 , when the period of parole
granted to a prisoner expires without the revocation of the prisoner’s parole,
the sentence of the court on the prisoner is taken as having been wholly
satised.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to-
(a) A life prisoner; or
(b) A prisoner released on parole in respect of a partially suspended sentence
of imprisonment.
79. Power of Board to revoke parole orders

(1) Subject to subsection2, the Board may, at any time, of its own motion or on
receiving a report from a probation ofcer or any other person-
(a) Revoke a parole order; or
(b) Vary, amend or conrm a parole order; or
(c) Suspend a parole order on such terms as it thinks t: or
(d) Exercise in relation to a parole order more than one of its power under
paragraph (b)
(2) Unless the Board considers it impracticable to do so, the Board is not to
revoke or suspend a parole order granting parole to a prisoner unless it has
rst called on the prisoner to show because why any of those powers should
not be exercised.
(3) If a person is sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed during the
period of his or her release on parole, the parole order is revoked whether or
not, at the time of his or her conviction for that offence, the period of that had
expired.
(4) Subsection 3 does not apply where the execution of the whole of a sentence
referred to in that subsection is suspended under the Sentencing Act 1997.
(5) If a prisoner’s release on parole is revoked –
84
(a) In the case of a prisoner who is not a lifer, the prisoner is liable to serve
the remainder of his or her sentence and the period of that release is not
to be taken into account in determining how much of the term of his or
her sentence remains to be served unless the Board otherwise directs;
and
(b) In the case of a life prisoner, the prisoner is liable to be imprisoned for
the remainder of his or her natural life.
(6) Where the Board revokes a parole order applying to a prisoner after his
or her release from prison, the Board may, by warrant signed by the
chairperson of the Board or the secretary of the Board at the chairperson’s
direction, authorise a police ofcer to apprehend the prisoner and return
the prisoner to prison.
80. Warrants for return of prisoners to prison

(1) The Board may, by warrant signed by the chairperson of the Board or the
secretary of the Board at the chairperson’s direction, authorise a police ofcer
to apprehend a prisoner who has been released on parole and return the
prisoner to prison if at any time-
(a) the Board has reasonable cause to suspect any act or omission on part of
the prisoner who has been released on parole that, in its opinion, may
justify the revocation of the prisoner’s parole order; or
(b) For any other reason the Board considers it proper to do so.
(2) The Board may exercise its power under subsection 1 without holding a
meeting.
(3) The chairperson of the Board, in the same circumstances as the Board may act
under subsection 1 and if the chairperson considers that circumstances exist
that require action to be taken urgently, may issue a warrant authorising a
police ofcer to apprehend a prisoner and return the prisoner to prison.
(4) On the issue of a warrant under this section for the apprehension of a prisoner
on parole, the prisoner’s parole is extended for a period equal to a period
commencing on the day on which the warrant is issued and ending on the
day on which it is executed.
(5) If a prisoner is returned to prison after the execution of a warrant against the
prisoner under subsection 1 the following provisions apply:
(a) The Board, within 14 days after the prisoner is so returned to prison, is
to give the prisoner an opportunity to be heard;
(b) the Board may, after complying with paragraph (a), exercise in relation
to the prisoner the powers conferred on it by subsection 1 of section 79
as if he or she were a prisoner to whom that subsection applies;
(c) If the Board revokes the prisoner’s release on parole pursuant to section
85
79(1), the provisions of section 79(5) apply to the prisoner accordingly.
81. Authority of Warrant

A warrant issued under this part authorises the police ofcer executing the
warrant to-
 arrest the prisoner to whom it relates and return that prisoner to prison; and
 Exercise the same powers as a police ofcer may exercise when arresting a
person who the police ofcer believes on reasonable grounds has committed
an offence.
82. Power of Board to release prisoner on parole after previous

revocation
The Board may release a prisoner on parole notwithstanding that on any
previous occasion the prisoner’s release on parole has been revoked.
83. Board to determine its own procedures in relation to certain

matters
The Board may determine its own procedures in relation to any act, matter or
thing over which it has jurisdiction.
Division 3 – Miscellaneous
83 A. Part 8 does not apply to youth serving period of detention

This Part does not apply in respect of a sentence of detention imposed under
the Youth Justice Act 1997 on a person who is serving that sentence, or part of that
sentence, in a prison.
83 B. Application of Part 8 to prisoner in detention centre

This Part applies in respect of a sentence of imprisonment which is being
served, or part of which is being served, by a prisoner in a detention centre, within
the meaning of the Youth Justice Act 1997.
86
Chapter – 6
Relevant Court Verdicts

Premature release of prisoners has been the prerogative of the President of
India, Governors of State and the Executive machinery of the State Governments, all
of whom had been granting the premature releases of selected number of prisoners
on the advice of the Inspector Generals/Directors of the Prison Department at the
State level having had followed the rules and procedures generally contained in
the State Jail Manuals. The prerogative operated unquestioned until the 1960s.
The technical legal questions in regard to the procedure followed in respect of the
premature release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment started surfacing
when the Courts were approached by prisoners to explain the meaning of the
term ‘life imprisonment’. Ever since then there have been a spate of writ petitions
by prisoners before the Supreme Court of India as also before the High Courts in
several states on questions/issues pertaining to remission and parole/premature
release.
For the purpose of this study, almost all of the relevant verdicts of the
Supreme Court of India, as also of the High Courts, have been perused. These
judicial pronouncements having bearing with the study are being reproduced in
respect of their intrinsic instructional value.
1. Explanation on Life Imprisonment
 Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

(AIR 1961 Supreme Court 600 (V.48 C88) 12th January 1961
This was a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for an order in the nature
of habeas corpus claiming that the petitioner has justly served his sentence and
should therefore be released.
Held
“There is no provision of law whereunder a sentence for life imprisonment,
without any formal remission by appropriate Government, can be automatically
treated as one of a denite period’.
“Unless the sentence is commuted or remitted by appropriate authority
under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (S.55) or the Code of
Criminal Procedure (S.402), a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment is bound
in law to serve the life term in prison. The rules framed under the Prisons Act
enable such a prisoner to earn remissions - ordinary, special and State - and the
said remissions will be given credit towards his term of imprisonment. For the
purpose of working out the remissions of the sentence imprisonment for life is
87
ordinarily equated with a denite period, but it is only for that particular purpose
and not for any other purpose. As the sentence of life imprisonment is one of
denite duration, the remissions so earned do not help such a convict as it is not
possible to predict the time of his death”.
 Maru Ram vs. Union of India (AIR 1980, SC 2147)

Held
The imprisonment for life is nothing less and nothing else than imprisonment
which lasted till the last breath.
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ratan Singh and Others (1976) 3 Supreme
Court Cases 470
Held
(i) “That a sentence of imprisonment for life does not automatically expire at
the end of 20 years including the remissions, because the administrative
rules framed under the various Jail Manuals under the Prisons Act cannot
supersede the statutory provisions of the Indian Penal Code. A sentence
of imprisonment for life means a sentence for the entire life of the prisoner
unless the appropriate Government chooses to exercise its discretion under
section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.”
(ii) “The appropriate Government has the undoubted discretion to remit or
refuse to remit the sentence and where it refuses to remit the sentence no
writ can be issued directing the State Government to release the prisoner.”
(iii) “The rules framed under the Prisons Act or under the Jail Manual do not
affect the total period which the prisoner has to suffer but merely amount to
administrative instructions regarding the various remissions to be given to
the prisoner from time to time in accordance with the rules.”
 Rakesh Kaushik vs. Delhi Administration (Writ Petition

(Criminal) No. 1266 of 1982
Held
(i) “A person who is sentenced to life imprisonment is sentenced to imprisonment
for a ‘term’. The word ‘term’ does not necessarily imply a concept of
ascertainability or conveys a sense of certainty.”
(ii) “The modalities for working out the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure would be that by virtue of Section 433-A, (which came
into operation on 18.12.1978), where a sentence of imprisonment for life is
imposed on a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments
provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been
commuted under Section 433 to one of imprisonment for life, such a person
88
cannot be released from a prison unless he has served at least fourteen years
of imprisonment.”
(iii) “Under Section 433 of the Code, the appropriate Government has the power,
interalia, to commute the sentence of imprisonment for life for a term not
exceeding 14 years or to ne.”
Laxman Naskar vs. State of West Bengal (2000) 7 Supreme Court

Cases 629
Held
“The completion of a term in jail serving imprisonment and remissions
earned under the relevant Rules or law will not entitle an automatic release, but
the appropriate Government must pass a separate order remitting the unexpired
portion of the sentence.”
 State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh (1990) 2 SCC 661

Held
“Remission Schemes are introduced to ensure prison discipline and good
behaviour and not to upset sentences. If the sentence is of imprisonment for life,
ordinarily the convict has to pass the remainder of his life in prison but remissions
and commutations are granted in exercise of power under Section 432 and 433,
Cr.P.C. carving out an exception in the category of those convicts who have
already enjoyed the generosity of the executive power on the commutation of
death sentence to one of life imprisonment. Even in such cases Section 433-A of
the Code or the executive instruction of 1976 does not insist that the convict pass
the remainder of his life in prison but merely insists that he shall have served time
for at least 14 years.”
 P.V. Bhaktavatchalam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1991, Cr. L.J.

1870)
Held
“Under section 433, the prisoners are not entitled to be released prematurely
as a matter of right. Either U/s 433 or under any other section, it is entirely the
discretion of the Government to release the prisoners prematurely. As a self-
imposed restriction, accepting the recommendation of the All India Committee
on Prison Reforms, the Government has issued the Government Order to the
effect that prisoners sentenced under certain sections of the penal code are not
eligible for premature release. This Government Order has nothing to do with the
date of conviction, and there is no question of retrospectively.
89
Government order not making eligible prisoners sentenced for offences which
are heinous in character such as rape, forgery, dacoity, terrorist, terrorist crimes
and offences against the State, and prisoners convicted of economic offences,
black-marketing, smuggling and misuse of power and authority, and prisoners
sentenced under Prevention of Corruption Act, Suppression of Immoral Trafc
in Women’s and Girls Act, Drugs Act and Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
for premature release is not discriminatory. May be the Government feels that the
prisoners who have committed the said offences should not be shown any mercy
and that if they are released they may again be a menace to the society.”
The Misuse of Penological Benevolence: The Case of Enmasse Release of
Prisoners in U.P.
Reference being the Two Landmark Judgements of the High Court of
Judicature Allahabad
Mirza Mohammad Husayn Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 5039 of 2000)
Background
This petition under Article 226 Constitution had been led for quashing of
the Government Orders dated 11.1.2000 and 25.1.2000 by which general directions
were issued for premature release of prisoners who had undergone a very small
portion of sentence imposed on them.
The subject of Government Order is ‘Premature Release of Prisoners on the
occasion of Republic Day 2000. Premature release was ordered for the following
category of prisoners:
(i) Prisoners who had undergone 20 years of sentence with remission by
26.1.2000.
(ii) Male prisoners of 60 years or above, who had been sentenced to imprisonment
for life and had undergone 3 years of sentence (without remission by
26.1.2000.
(iii) Lady prisoners of 50 years or above who had been sentenced to imprisonment
for life and had undergone 3 years of sentence without remission by 26.1.2000.
(iv) Male prisoners of 60 years or above who had been sentenced to a xed term
of imprisonment and undergone 1/3 of the sentence imposed upon them or
two years whichever is less.
(v) Lady prisoners of 50 years or above who had been sentenced to a xed term
of imprisonment and had undergone 1/3 of the sentence imposed upon them
or 2 years whichever is less.
With regard to the prisoners coming within the purview of clause (I), it was
90
provided that undergoing of 14 years of sentence (without remission) will be

mandatory for those whose cases were covered by section 433A Cr.P.C. Para 4 of
the Government order provided that the following category of persons will not be
eligible for premature release:
(i) Those who have been granted bail and were not conned in jail on 26.1.2000.
(ii) Foreigners
(iii) Convicted by court martials
(iv) Undertrial detenus under detention laws
(v) Convicted under Foreigners Act or Passport Act
(vi) Convicted under section 3 to 10 of the Ofcial Secrets Act, 1967
(vii) Convicted under section 2 or 3 of Criminal Amendment Act and sections 121
to 131 of IPC
(viii)Convicted under Prevention of Corruption Act or sections 167, 170, 171, 181,
191 to 197, 210, 216A, 216B and 219 of IPC
(ix) Convicted under Immoral Trafc (Prevention) Act
(x) Convicted for outraging the modesty of a woman.
The Court observed that the clauses (ii) and (iii) show that male prisoners of
60 years or above and lady prisoners of 50 years or above having been sentenced to
imprisonment for life would be entitled to release after going a sentence of 3 years
only. Similarly, prisoners of the aforesaid age group who had been sentenced
to any term of imprisonment other than life would be entitled to release after
undergoing 2 years of imprisonment or 1/3 of the sentence whichever was less.
The Government order was applicable even if the prisoner had been convicted
for most serious or heinous offences like Section 302, 304B, 364, 376, 395, 396
IPC or under the NDPS Act or under TADA. The only requirement for getting a
premature release for a life convict, if male of 60 years or above and if female of
50 years or above was undergoing 3 years of sentence and if these categories of
prisoners had been sentenced to any given term of imprisonment other than life
sentence, undergoing of 2 years of sentence was enough.
The Chief Secretary of the Government of U.P. had taken the stand that
the Governor of Uttar Pradesh had exercised powers under the Article 161 of
the Constitution and the Government orders had been issued in exercise of the
said power. It was pleaded that the Government order had been issued in the
interest of public at large and the power had been exercised considering the old
age, ill-health and other factors and circumstances. Thus, according to the State,
the Government orders of pardon by the Governor of U.P. were covered under
Article 161 of the Constitution.
91
Decrying the Government Order, the Court observed:

“There can be no manner of doubt that largescale premature release of
prisoners who were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, including life
imprisonment is wholly against the public interest …Letting loose a large number
of criminals, who have undergone a very short sentence, will have a detrimental
effect on the society at large. The people would lose faith in the judicial system
itself.”
Opining on the issue of barring the consideration of Nominal Rolls and Forms
A during the pendency of appeal under the G.O.S. dated 3.7.1992 and 22.12.1975,
the Court Commented:
“If there is a complete bar on the executive for consideration of the cases of
prisoners who have undergone the statutory minimum period of 14 years for
grant of any kind of remission, commutation or probation in their sentences,
the restriction suffers from the danger of falling foul of Article 21 and 14 of the
Constitution of India. We nd that similarly placed prisoners who have undergone
over 14 years in jail, and whose convictions have been conrmed as their appeals
have been dismissed or who have not preferred any appeals are entitled to have
their cases for premature release from jail considered under various statutory or
constitutional provisions. This group of prisoners whose applications in Form
A and nominal rolls are not being considered because of non-disposal of their
appeals for reasons such as poverty and absence of a parokar, the inability of
the judicial system to dispose of appeals in a reasonable length of time, in fact,
stand on a worse footing. Such prisoners are doubly prejudiced, rst as their
appeals are not heard over prolonged periods. Second, even their nominal rolls
and applications in Form A are not forwarded precluding consideration of their
prayers for premature relief long after the passage of the statutory minimum
period of 14 years.”
Underlining the signicance of Prisoners Release on Probation

Act, the Court Commented:
“So far as the U.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act 1938 is concerned, it
facilitates a loose form of release from jail by licence under the guardianship of
a government ofcer or a suitable person belonging to the same religion of the
prisoner, after the prisoner has served out a prescribed minimum term, if from
his antecedents and conduct in prison, the State Government is satised that the
prisoner is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceful life on release. The
prisoner is still treated in constructive custody, and the period of licensed release
counts towards his sentence. There is no sound reason here, for denying a prisoner
the right to have his application for release in Form A considered under this Act,
until the nal disposal of his appeal. A fortiori there is much greater reason for
92
releasing a prisoner on parole or licence under this Act, and for observing his
conduct in jail and outside, if his appeal has been wrongly held up for no fault of
the prisoner over an in ordinately long length of time.”
In this regard, the Constitutional apex Court bench has held in Maru Ram
Vs. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147, in paragraph 69, “We heartwarmingly
observe experiments in open jails, lled by lifers, liberal paroles and pardons,
generosity of juvenile justice and licensed release or freedom under leash a la, the
Uttar Pradesh Prisoner’s Release on Probation Act, 1938. We cannot view without
gloom the reversion to the sadistic superstition that the longer a life convict is
kept in a cage the surer will be his redemption. It is our considered view that
beyond an optimum point of say, eight years – we mean no xed formula – a
prison detention be numbs and makes nervous wreck or unmitigated brute of a
prisoner.”
Likewise in paragraph 72(ii) the same law report again reiterates: “The U.P.
Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938, enabling limited enlargement under
licence will be effective as legislatively sanctioned imprisonment of a loose and
liberal type and such licensed enlargement will be reckoned for the purpose of
the 14 year duration. Similar other statutes and rules will enjoy similar efcacy.”
Having had examined the issues involved and the implications of such
Government Orders, the Court struck down two G.O.s dated 11.1.2000 and
25.1.2000 issued by the Governor under Article 61, which inter alia directed
release of all life imprisonment male prisoners over 60 years in age, and female
prisoners over 50 years of age, if they had undergone an actual period of 3 years
imprisonment on 26.1.2000. The main reasons for this order were that irrespective
of the differences and seriousness of the cases, release of all prisoners, over 60,
in the case of males and 50 years in the case of females, who had undergone
only 3 years sentence, in case of life imprisonment by one stroke by a blanket
order without examining the individual cases amounted to an arbitrary and mala
de exercise of Governor’s constitutional powers as not well considered judicial
orders.
The Court further observed. “The power of pardon under article 161 cannot
be exercised in a manner which completely negates the scheme of Constitution
regarding division of powers. An essential function performed by the judiciary
cannot be altered or modied or its effect taken away in the garb of power of
pardon by the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution. It is a clear misuse
of power which cannot be countenanced and must be struck down.”
The bench also directed that “in larger public interest, the appropriate
direction which should be issued by this Court is to direct the State to put all such
persons back to prison who have been granted premature release on the strength
of the impunged Government Orders”.
93
This direction set in motion a urry of rearrests. However, the Supreme

Court, when approached by the re-arrestees, stayed on 5.9.2003 and 30.1.2004, on
the re-arrest (not in the case of all the released prisoners) but provided relief to
only those prisoners who had undergone 14 years sentence, after calling for jail
reports.
Bachey Lal Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 2357 of
1997)
The High Court of Allahabad order in Bachey Lal Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal
Writ Petition No. 2357 of 1997) others noted that by 30.7.2004 there were 510
prisoners in various prisons in U.P. who have undergone over 14 years in prison.
These include 249 prisoners who were convicted prior to 18.12.1978, and 261
prisoners who were convicted after that date.
Having reviewed the record of cases the Court observed: “We must say that
even on a cursory perusal of the material, records and afdavits before us, we are
greatly disturbed with the approach adopted by the State Government in dealing
with the cases of prisoners who have undergone over 14 years in prison and were
eligible for consideration of their cases to premature release under the Jail Manual
and the Prisoners Release on Probation Act. The two most disturbing features
were: (1) delays and indenite postponement of the cases of eligible prisoners,
and (2) predisposition to reject applications for premature release on imsy,
untenable grounds.
On both counts, the Court, on the basis of the material produced and perused,
indignantly observed:
There have been unpardonable delays in forwarding the application by the Jail
Superintendents, or by the S.P., D.M.’s Probationary Ofcers, Advisory
Boards or even by the State Government.
In a routine manner, the nominal rolls or Form A applications of virtually all
convicts are being rejected. Bold statements of the police authorities, DMs or
Probationary authorities, unsubstantiated by any material for the conclusion
that tension or enmity between the parties (victim and offender) still exists, or
there was danger to the lives and safety of the opposite party or the prisoner,
or simply the report of the DM or S.S.P. that they do not favour the release
or that the convict is not likely to have a livelihood when he returns home,
have been taken as sufcient grounds for refusing applications for premature
release.
The Court observed: “Government ofcials are mistaken if they think that
the safest course is either to reject or to postpone an application for premature
release. Such a cavaliar rejection of the applications of the convict for premature
release, ignoring the criteria contained in the Jail Manual, Prisoners Release on
94
Probation Act or in decisions of the High Court or Supreme Court, apart from
being a human right violation of the convict, also violate the convict’s fundamental
rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It may on
occasion invite the censure of the Court against negligent authorities. It is too late
in the day for the authorities to contend that these fundamental rights are shut out
before the locked doors of the prison. Likewise, the fear of authorities that they
would lay themselves open to charges of corruption if they were to allow any
application for premature release is unfounded. If the orders are passed honestly
on objective criteria laid down in the statutes, without discrimination between
similarly placed prisoners, in line with the judicial dicta of this court and the apex
court, and decisions are based on concrete veriable material, there is no reason
for the authorities to apprehend that such decisions on individual cases on merit
would be frowned upon by Courts.
“It is unfortunate that premature releases are either ordered only by the
Court orders (such as the recent Supreme Court order dated 23.7.2004 in the case
of Bhagwan Das & Others Vs. State of U.P. in Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
No. 1523 of 2004, directing release of 43 prisoners who had undergone 14 years),
or by a blanket Government Order under Article 161 of the Constitution of India,
directing releases of all prisoners belonging to a particular category which has
invited the wrath of this Court in the case of Mirza Mohammad Husain Vs. State
of U.P. 2002(1)JIC 342(All). But no orders are being passed after considering
individual cases on merit. It is also sad that the prisoners with nancial clout as
the above mentioned 13 prisoners have only been able to secure releases from
Supreme Court, but what about the fate of the forgotten penniless prisoners who
have no one to represent their cases that this Court is especially concerned about.”
In Swamy Shraddananda and Murali Manohar Mishra Vs. State of
Karnataka (2008) the Supreme Court observed that the Prisons Act does not confer
on any authority a power to commute or remit sentences; it provides only for the
regulation of prisons and for the treatment of prisoners conned therein. Section
59 of the Prisons Act confers a power on the State Government to make rules,
inter alia, for rewards for good conduct. Therefore, the rules made under the
Act should be construed within the scope of the ambit of the Act.... Under the
said rules the order of an appropriate Government under Section 401 Criminal
Procedure Code, are a pre-requisite for a release. No other rule has been brought
to our notice which confers an indefeasible right on a prisoner sentenced to
transportation for life to an unconditional release on the expiry of a particular
term including remissions. The rules under the Prisons Act do not substitute a
lesser sentence for a sentence of transportation for life.
The question of remission is exclusively within the province of the
appropriate Government; and in this case it is admitted that, though the
appropriate Government made certain remissions under Section 401 of the Code
95
of Criminal Procedure, it did not remit the entire sentence. We, therefore, hold
that the petitioner has not yet acquired any right to release'.
It is, therefore, manifest from the decision of this Court that the Rules framed
under the Prisons Act or under the Jail Manual do not affect the total period
which the prisoner has to suffer but merely amount to administrative instructions
regarding the various remissions to be given to the prisoner from time to time
in accordance with the rules. This Court further pointed out that the question of
remission of the entire sentence or a part of it lies within the exclusive domain of
the appropriate Government under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and neither Section 57 of the Indian Penal Code nor any Rules or local Acts can
stultify the effect of the sentence of life imprisonment given by the court under
the Indian Penal Code. In other words, this Court has clearly held that a sentence
for life would ensure till the lifetime of the accused as it is not possible to x a
particular period the prisoner's death and remissions given under the Rules could
not be regarded as a substitute for a sentence of transportation for life.
The matter may be looked at from a slightly different angle. The issue of
sentencing has two aspects. A sentence may be excessive and unduly harsh or
it may be highly disproportionately inadequate. When an appellant comes to this
Court carrying a death sentence awarded by the trial court and conrmed by
the High Court, this Court may nd, as in the present appeal, that the case just
falls short of the rarest of the rare category and may feel somewhat reluctant in
endorsing the death sentence. But at the same time, having regard to the nature
of the crime, the Court may strongly feel that a sentence of life imprisonment that
subject to remission normally works out to a term of 14 years would be grossly
disproportionate and inadequate. What then the Court should do? If the Court's
option is limited only to two punishments, one a sentence of imprisonment, for
all intents and purposes, of not more than 14 years and the other death, the Court
may feel tempted and nd itself nudged into endorsing the death penalty. Such
a course would indeed be disastrous. A far more just, reasonable and proper
course would be to expand the options and to take over what, as a matter of fact,
lawfully belongs to the Court, i.e., the vast hiatus between 14 years' imprisonment
and death. It needs to be emphasized that the Court would take recourse to the
expanded option primarily because in the facts of the case, the sentence of 14
years imprisonment would amount to no punishment at all.
The formalisation of a special category of sentence, though for an extremely
few number of cases, shall have the great advantage of having the death penalty
on the statute book but to actually use it as little as possible, really in the rarest
of the rare cases. This would only be a reassertion of the Constitution Bench
decision in Bachan Singh (supra) besides being in accord with the modern trends
in penology.
96
Rejection of Nominal Rolls

“We nd that in complete ignorance of these provisions the State Government
appears to be rejecting nominal rolls once and for all, for all time to come, and on
occasion such orders of rejection are being passed even in cases where the DMs or
Advisory Boards have recommended reconsideration of the cases after a certain
length of time.”
In the present case, the Court made the following suggestions to the State
Government:
 To accept applications for release on licence under the U.P. Prisoners
Release on Probation Act, 1938 during the pendency of criminal appeals,
if the prisoner is otherwise eligible to prefer the same in accordance with
prescribed conditions.
 To move application under section 389 Cr.P.C. for permitting bail in cases
where accused are in jail for over 14 years and appeals are still undisposed.
The Court Decried the Practice

Decrying the practice of releasing the accused enmasse, the Court observed:
“It appears to us that such practices of releasing accused en masse by such
general Government orders purportedly issued by the Governor under Article
161 are resorted to when no regular releases are being effected under the normal
provisions for premature release of prisoners contained in the Jail Manual and
sections 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the U.P. Prisoners
Release on Probation Act, 1938 and other parallel provisions, where prisoners
are required to be released after detailed examination of their cases, but only
prisoners with political clout are managing to secure premature releases, and jails
have become overcrowded. Indeed these en masse releases at one stroke resemble
the ofcial practice of hurried spending, without application of mind to the merit
of each case in last few days or hours of the nancial year, because the well-
considered steps needed for earmarking budgetary expenditures are not taken all
the year long.”
Approach Suggested
Suggesting a needed approach, the Court observed:
“It is thus clear that there is need to strike a middle path and to avoid the two
extremes. Neither the release of prisoners almost immediately after conviction
by the executive making a mockery of judicial orders, nor the other extreme of
allowing prisoners to languish in jails for a period as long as 20 to 25 years meet
our approval. For some years the pairokars and relations visit these prisoners in
jail, but later they get embroiled with the problems of their own lives or become
97
disinterested and even stop visiting these prisoners who become forgotten
numbers, bereft of hope. When the period of incarceration of a prisoner in jail
is unduly prolonged, women and children are exploited and families ruined.
The possibility of prisoner eventually being reintegrated as a socially useful
and productive member of his family on release gradually fades. Also no useful
purpose is served by detaining the prisoner for a longer period as society and the
relations of the victim could usually be expected to be satised with this adequate
measure of punishment undergone by the offender, and whatever deterrent
message that a punishment intended to convey would have been received by
the prisoner after his long stint in jail, and indeed he has lost any potentiality
of committing a future crime. But the solution to this problem is not by passing
general orders releasing prisoners en bloc but by individually considering cases of
prisoners for premature release in accordance with criteria laid down in relevant
statutes and government orders at appropriate levels within a reasonable or
prescribed time frame.”
Directions of the Court

 Direction to Director General of Prisons and Principal Secretary (Prison)
to decide pending nominal rolls or Application Form ‘A’ within four
months. Greatest expedition must be exercised in the cases of inrm or ailing
prisoners who may be eligible for the benets of paras 195, 196 or 197 of
the Jail Manual, or those who have suffered the longest periods in jail, or
those who have done over 14 years and are over 70 years in age. Apparently
there appears no good reason to keep the eligible category of prisoners over
70 years in jail any longer, unless there are very strong grounds based on
objective materials to deny them an order of premature release.
 Direction to the Principal Secretary (Prison) to ensure that the time schedules
are observed by different authorities including the government in deciding
nominal rolls or applications on Form ‘A’ and evolving procedures for
resubmission of nominal rolls after the expiry of a certain length of time.
 Criteria for decision on applications for premature release. The mechanical
rejection of applications in Form ‘A’ or nominal rolls should not be the
avowed aim when the cases of those prisoners who have undergone over
14 years imprisonment are being considered for premature release. In Para
5 of the Laxman Haskar Vs. Union of India, 2000 Cr. L.J. 1471, the Supreme
Court has approved the following criteria when an application for premature
release is being considered:
“(i) whether the offence is an individual act or crime without affecting the
society at large;
(ii) whether there is any chance for future recurrence of committing crime;
(iii) whether the convict has lost his potentiality in committing crime;
98
(iv) whether there is any fruitful purpose of conning this convict any more;
(v) socio-economic condition of the convicts family.
If there are any conclusions to the contrary, i.e. if it is suggested that there is
possibility of a crime recurring, or the accused is likely to engage in a life of crime
as a means for securing his livelihood or if tensions exist between the families
of the victims and the accused after the lapse of 14 years or more years, then
these conclusions must not be reached on the mere report of the D.M. or SSP or
Probation Ofcer of Advisory Board, but must be based on objective veriable
material, with reasons.
1. Principal Secretary to issue directions to all subordinate authorities, i.e. D.G.
(Prisons), Jail Superintendents, D.M.s and SSP, SPs, Probation Ofcers,
Advisory Boards to observe time schedules and to decide applications for
premature release on the objective criteria spelt out above.
2. Requirement for maintenance of transparent records and charts for
showing disposal of cases relating to premature release.
3. State Government and Principal Secretary (Prisons) could consider
appropriateness of an amendment in the Rules for reducing period of
consideration of Form ‘A’ from 14 years to a lesser period of about 10 years
or so.
4. Directions to Legal Services Authority for making legal aid to convicts more
effective, calling for feedback from DJS and for overseeing the disposal of
cases relating to premature releases of prisoners in the Secretariat.
5. Directions to District Judges to comply with directions of the Legal
Services Authority for providing legal aid to resourceless prisoners for
ling criminal appeals and moving applications for premature release,
and to submit a report to this court about action taken and other problems
relating to district or central jails under their jurisdiction.
6. Registrar-General to take steps for disposing 231 appeals upto 2000 where
applicants are in jails within a period of about one year.
99
Chapter – 7
The System of Premature Release of Prisoners in

Different States/Union Territories
Relevant Provisions in Different States
ANDHRA PRADESH
The relevant provisions available for premature release in Andhra Pradesh
are contained in:
1. G.O. Ms. No. 17, Home (Pri. B2) Dept. dt. 17.1.2003
2. G.O. Ms. No. 21, Home (Pri. B2) Dept. dt. 22.1.2003
3. A.P. Prison Rules, 1979 Rule 320 to 329, 333 and 334 of Chapter XXI.
Premature Release of Life Convicts under S. 433(b) of Cr. P.C. 1973

and S. 55 IPC, 1860
The Standing Committee for the purpose of recommending the premature
release of life convicts comprises of the following:
1. Principal Secretary to Government, Chairman

Home (Prisons) Department,
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
2. Secretary to Government, Member
Legal Affairs, Law Department,
Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
3. Chief Legal Advisor, CID, Hyderabad who is a District Member
Judge
4. Addl. Director General/Inspector General of Police (law & Member
Order), O/o, the Director General & Inspector General of
Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
5. Director General and Inspector General of Prisons Member/
Convenor
The Standing Committee meets once in a year, preferably in the month of
January to review the cases of life convicts who full the conditions given below
and recommend for their premature release by the Government.
(i) Life convicts who have completed 7 years of actual sentence and 10 years of
total sentence including remission as on 31st December of the preceding year,
in which the review is taken up.
100
The System of Premature Release of Prisoners in Different States
(ii) Life convicts who have completed 65 years of age in case of men and the age
of 60 years in case of women as per the committal warrant and who have
undergone actual sentence of 5 years and a total sentence of 7 years including
remission.
(iii) Life convicted women prisoners who have undergone actual sentence of 6
years and total sentence of 8 years including remission.
(iv) Old and decrepit prisoners as dened in rule No. 321(h) of the Andhra
Pradesh Prison Rules, 1979 subject to recommendations of the Medical Board.
The following categories of prisoners though they are covered by Section
433(b) of the Cr. P.C., 1973 and section 55 of the IPC, 1860 are not eligible to be
placed before the Standing Committee:
(i) Life term prisoners convicted and sentenced by courts situated outside the
State of Andhra Pradesh.
(ii) Life term prisoners convicted against laws relating to a matter to which the
Executive Power of the Union of India extends.
(iii) Life convicted prisoners, who have been punished for any Prison offence
during the preceding 2 years and whether they are currently under the
punishment for the same or not.
(iv) Life convicted prisoners who have availed either parole or furlough during
the preceding 2 years and not surrendered in time and/or with any adverse
reports.
(v) Prisoners convicted under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985, the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1993, Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Explosives Act,
1884, Indian Arms Act, 1959, Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2001 and Andhra
Pradesh Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2001 who had been sentenced to
imprisonment for life.
(vi) Prisoners convicted for crimes against women, under sections 366, 366-A, 366-
B, 367, 373, 376, 304(B), of IPC, 1860 and Dowry Prohibition Act while being
sentenced to imprisonment for life and also prisoners who are convicted for
life along with offences under section 354, 498-A, 306 of IPC, 1860 where the
victims are women.
(vii) Prisoners convicted for life along with offences of theft, robbery, dacoity and
also prisoners convicted of murder while involved in smuggling operations
and terrorist crimes such as sections 121, 303, 305, 311, 379 to 402, 411 and 412
IPC, 1860.
(viii)Prisoners who have been convicted for organized murders in a premeditated
manner and in an organized manner including in communal offences.
(ix) Prisoners who have overstayed on parole/furlough for cumulative periods
101
in excess of three (3) years.

(x) Professional murderers who have been guilty of murder by hiring.
(xi) Prisoners convicted of murder of public servants on duty.
(xii) Prisoners sentenced to death sentence, which is later commuted to life
sentence.
(xiii)Life convicted prisoners who have escaped during the period of remand,
trial or after conviction.
Premature Release Under A.P. Prison Rules, 1979
320(a) The cases of all prisoners, other than those prisoners sentenced to life
imprisonment, who have served half of their sentences including remission
and have served not less than two and a half year including remission, and
(b) The cases of all the prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment who have
served half of their sentences including remission and have served not less
than seven years' actual sentence shall be placed before the Advisory Board,
as constituted, for consideration as to whether their premature release will be
recommended. The cases of prisoners imprisoned for failure to give security
under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Act No. 2 of
1974) shall not be placed before the Advisory Board.
The cases of all prisoners sentenced to two years in the aggregate or more but
not exceeding three years who have served three-fourths of their sentence including
remission shall be placed before the Advisory Board; provided that their conduct
in jail has been exemplary. Only such cases of prisoners as are recommended for
release by the Advisory Board shall be submitted to Government for orders. The
cases of prisoners imprisoned for failure to give security under Chapter VIII of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), shall not be placed before
the Advisory Board.
Note:
(1) The cases of prisoners convicted by court martial should also be placed
before the Advisory Board for consideration
(2) Sentences of imprisonment for failure to furnish security should not
be taken into account in determining the aggregate sentence for the
purpose.
(c) (i) The cases of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life shall be submitted
to Government for orders with the recommendation of the Advisory Board
whether it recommends release or not together with the Judgment of the
Court and other connected papers.
If the Government considers that it would be safe to release the prisoners,
the unexpired portion of the sentence or sentences shall be remitted under the
provision of section 432 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Act No. 2. of 1974)
102
where any such sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter
to which the executive power of the Central Government extends, a suitable
recommendation for remission shall be made to the Central Government.
(ii) If the Government refuses to order the release of a prisoner under the
one-half remission rules, they shall direct the resubmission of his case
for their consideration again after such period as they may deem t.
Provided that prisoners other than life prisoners shall, on the expiry of their
sentences, less the periods or remission earned, be released unconditionally
without the specic orders of Government.
(d) The Superintendent of the Prison in which such prisoners are conned shall
maintain a register in which the name of each prisoner shall be entered
under a date two months before he would be eligible for consideration of his
release after allowing for normal remission and if, for any reason, he ceases
to earn remission or earns special remission, the due date shall be altered
accordingly.
(e) The cases of old and decrepit prisoners who are certied by the Medical
Ofcer as incapable of doing any real work and would appear to be unable
to commit or organize crime after their release should also be placed before
the Advisory Board for consideration and recommendation, irrespective of
the term of imprisonment already served by them.
Note: The following categories of diseases shall be considered as incurable and
decrepit and any prisoner suffering from them, if certied to that effect by the
Medical Ofcer may be recommended for release by the Advisory Board after
satisfying itself by verication of the prisoner with the medical certicate:
1. Advanced bilateral pulmonary tuberculosis.
2. Incurable malignancy.
3. Incurable blood disease.
4. Portal hypertension and ascities.
5. Congestive heart failure.
6. Hypertension of malignant nature.
7. Chronic epile pay with mental degeneration.
8. Advanced leprosy with deformities and trophiculcers.
9. Total blindness of both eyes.
10. Loss of both legs (if this occurs during the period of imprisonment).
11. Loss of both arms (if this occurs during the period of imprisonment).
12. Incurable paraplegias and hemiplegias.
13. Advanced Parkinsonism.
14. Brain tumour.
103
15. Incurable Aneurysms.

(g) The cases of all prisoners who satisfy the following conditions shall be placed
before the Advisory Board for consideration, namely:
1. That the prisoners are over 65 years of age and have served not less than
2½ years of their sentence, including remission; and
2. That they are serving sentences for their rst and only conviction.
(h) The cases of prisoners in respect of whom appeals, either from the prisoners
or from the State are pending and also the cases of the prisoners who are
facing trial in other cases, shall not be placed before the Advisory Board for
consideration.
321. (a) A Meeting of the Advisory Board shall be held at least once a quarter and
oftener if there be cases to come before it.
(b) (i) The Advisory Board shall consist of:
HYDERABAD
1. The Inspector General of Prisons (Chairman)
2. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Member)
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Hyderabad (Member)
4. One or more non-ofcial members appointed by Government.
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad, shall be the Secretary of the
Board.
MUFUSSIL
1. The Inspector General of Prisons (Chairman)
2. The Sessions Judge of the Sessions division in which the prison is situated
(Member)
3. The Collector and District Magistrate (Member)
4. One or more non-ofcial members appointed by Government
The Superintendent of the jail concerned shall be the Secretary of the Board.
(i) A female non-ofcial member may also be appointed for participating
in the deliberations of the Board when it considers the cases of female
prisoners.
(ii) The term of ofce of each non-ofcial member shall ordinarily be three
years.
324 (a) Police reports shall be obtained in respect of prisoners whose cases are
to be placed before the Advisory Board. Police Ofcers not lower in rank
than Sub-Inspector of Police shall personally enquire into and report on the
advisability of premature release of the prisoners. The District Superintendent
104
of Police shall scrutinize the reports and give his considered opinion which
shall be submitted to the Advisory Board through the District Magistrate.
(b) Simultaneously reports from the concerned Probation Ofcers shall also
be called for by the Superintendent of the Prison.
(c) Reports relating to release of short term prisoners need not however be
submitted through the District Magistrate, but shall be sent direct to the
Superintendent of the Prison.
325. The Board shall not, as a rule, interview eligible convicts, unless they
have special reasons for wishing to see them, for example, when release is
proposed on grounds of age or inrmity or to ask them questions. Normally
the Committee shall make inquiries in the prison regarding the behaviour of
the convict in prison.
326. The Board shall record special reasons when it recommends the release of a
convict in opposition to the views of the District Magistrate or the Deputy
Commissioner of Police (Crimes), and also when it recommends the release
of a habitual convict.
327. The Board in cases it decides not to make a recommendation for immediate
release, shall order that the case be re-submitted for consideration after an
appropriate period, to be specied by it not exceeding three years.
328. The cases of ex-military convicts, charged under the Army Act, 1950 (XLVI
of 1950) or former Indian Army Act (VIII of 1911), convicted by Courts
Martial and committed to civil prisons to undergo their sentences, shall
not come under the purview of the Board. The Board may, however, make
recommendations in respect of them and the same shall be forwarded to the
Government for action under section 179 of the Army Act, 1950 (XLVI of
1950).
329. The Superintendent shall submit the following documents in respect of the
prisoners whose premature release is recommended by the Advisory Board
to the Inspector General for scrutiny and submission to Government.
1. Proceedings of the Advisory Board (Form No. 102)
2. Recommendation Roll (Form No. 103)
3. Nominal Roll (Form No. 50)
4. Working Sheet (Form No. 104) showing clearly how the date of
completion of ½ or ¾ of the sentence of a prisoner is arrived at.
5. Previous history report of the convict obtained from the District
Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate (Form No. 105).
6. Report of the Probation Ofcer (Form No. 105-A)
7. Copy of the Lower Court Judgment
8. Copy of the Appellate Court Judgment.
105
330. The cases of all prisoners, other than the prisoners sentenced to life
imprisonment, sentenced to more than fourteen years imprisonment or
for terms exceeding in the aggregate fourteen years shall when the term of
imprisonment undergone together with any remission earned or granted
amounts to fourteen years be reported to the Inspector General of Prisons
who will submit them to Government for order and;
The cases of all prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment or to imprisonment
for life and imprisonment for terms exceeding in the aggregate fourteen years
who have served not less than seven years actual sentence and whose total period
of imprisonment undergone including any remission earned or granted amounts
to fourteen years shall be reported to the Inspector General of Prison who will
submit them to the Government for orders.
Note: (1) If a convict residing in a district but convicted in Hyderabad city, or vice
versa, the District Magistrate concerned and the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, (crimes) Hyderabad should be consulted.
(2) If the convict residing in a district but convicted in Hyderabad city, the
Deputy Commission of Police, (crimes), alone should be consulted.
(3) The District Magistrate of the district in which the convict was convicted
need not be consulted if it is neither the district of origin or normal residence
of the convict nor the district in which the offence was committed.
(4) The reports from the concerned Probation Ofcers shall also be called for and
submitted to Government through the Inspector General.
331. The following procedure should be adopted when considering the cases of
prisoners belonging to other States for premature release by the Advisory
Board:
(a) In the case of prisoners convicted by courts in other States:
(i) If they are residents of Andhra Pradesh, Superintendents should make
inquiries from the district in which they lived in regard to their character
and antecedents for the use of the Revision Board.
(ii) If they are not residents of Andhra Pradesh State no such inquiries need
be made. The Advisory Board should base its recommendations only
on facts appearing in the judgment in the case and conduct in jail and
length of sentence undergone.
(b) In the case of subjects belonging to other States convicted by courts in
Andhra Pradesh, Superintendents should make inquiries in the district
of conviction and submit the case to the Inspector General, who will
then address Government in the Home Department in the matter.
Government will make any further inquiries that may be necessary in
regard to the antecedents of the prisoner.
106
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
As no premature release has been effected in this State during the last
ve years (2001-2005), no information regarding the relevant provisions (and
copies thereof) had been made available. In reference to question No. 7 seeking
information on relevant provisions, the response was “No Comments”.
HIMACHAL PRADESH
While responding to question No. 7 of the questionnaire, the Additional
Director of the Prisons mentioned that the premature releases are made under
the Government Order No. Home-B(F) 6-1/8a-Jails-II dated 28.1.2001 and
15.12.2003. But the copies of these orders were not made available to us despite
the endorsement of copies being enclosed.
JAMMU & KASHMIR
Premature release of prisoners is made as per the provisions of the Jail
Manual of the State. However, the relevant provisions were not informed.
KARNATAKA
The premature releases of prisoners are made as per Rule No. 814 of the
Karnataka Prison Manual, 1978 and Section 63(2)(C) of the Karnataka Prison
Act. The Advisory Board makes the recommendation of cases of convicts for
premature release. The desired information and copies thereof have not been
made available.
ORISSA
The State has modied its rules for the premature release of prisoners in
conformity with the guidelines issued by the National Human Rights Commission
in their letter dt. 8.11.99 and in their subsequent letter dt. 26.9.03. The Law
Department Resolution No. 12019 dt. 26.9.2000 and amendment Resolution No.
7496 dt. 25.5.2005.
Resolution No. 12019 dated 26.9.2000
In order to make uniform standards a criterion for determining the eligibility
of Prisoners undergoing life sentence for their premature release with other
State of India the State Governments have been pleased to decide that the State
Sentence Review Board, as per the guidelines furnished by National Human
Rights Commission to review sentence awarded to a prisoner and to recommend
his premature release, shall be constituted in the following manner, namely:
(a) The State Sentence Review Board shall be a permanent body under the
administrative control of the Law Department.
(b) The Board shall consist of a Chairman and ve others as members. The
Principal Secretary to Government of Orissa in the Home Department shall
107
be the Chairman, and the Secretary to Government in the Law Department,

one District and Sessions Judge to be nominated by the High Court of Orissa,
Director, Health Services, Orissa, a Senior Police Ofcer not below the rank of
Additional Director General and Inspector General of Police to be nominated
by the Director General of Police, Orissa and the Inspector General of Prisons,
Orissa shall be its members. The Inspector General of Prisons shall be the
member - Secretary of the Board.
The functions of the State Sentence Review Board shall be the review of
sentence awarded to a prisoner and for recommending his premature release in
appropriate cases.
The following guidelines are indicated for the working procedure of the State
Sentence Review Board namely:
1. Quorum of the Meeting
The recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board shall not be invalid
merely by reason of any vacancy in the Board or the inability of any member to
attend the Board meeting. The meeting of the Board shall not however, be held, if
the quorum is less than four members including the Chairman.
2. Periodicity of the Board’s Meetings

The State Sentence Review Board shall meet atleast once in a quarter at
Bhubaneswar on the date to be notied to members atleast ten days in advance
with complete agenda papers.
However, it shall be open to the Chairman of the Board to convene a meeting
of Board more frequently as may be deemed necessary.
3. Eligibility for Premature Release
The following category of inmates shall be eligible to be considered for
premature release by the State Sentence Review Board.
(1) Every convicted prisoner whether male or female undergoing sentence of the
imprisonment and covered by the provisions of Section 433-A Cr. P.C. shall be
eligible to be considered for premature release from the prison immediately
after serving out the sentence of 14 years of actual imprisonment, i.e. without
the remissions.
(2) All other convicted male prisoners undergoing the sentence of life
imprisonment shall be considered for premature release after they have
served atleast 14 years of imprisonment inclusive of remissions and after
completion of 10 years actual imprisonment i.e. without remissions.
(3) All other convicted female prisoners undergoing the sentence of life
108
served atleast 10 years of imprisonment inclusive of remissions and after

completion of 7 years actual imprisonment i.e. without remissions.
(4) Convict prisoners undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment on
attaining the age of 65 years provided he or she has served atleast 7 years of
imprisonment including the remissions.
(5) The convicted prisoners undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life and
who are suffering from terminal diseases like cancer, T.B. AIDS, irreversible
kidney failure, cardiac respiratory disease, leprosy and any other infectious
diseases etc. as certied by a Board of Doctors on completion of 5 years of
actual sentence or 7 years of sentence including remissions.
4. Ineligibility for Premature Release
The following category of convicted prisoners undergoing life sentence may
be considered eligible for premature release, namely
(i) Prisoners convicted of the offences such as rape, dacoity, terrorist crimes etc.
(ii) Prisoners who have been convicted for organised murders in a premeditated
and in an organised manner.
(iii) Professional murderers or who have been found guilty of murder by hiring
them.
(iv) Convicts who commit murder while involved in smuggling operations or
have committed the murder of public servants on duty.
5. Procedure for Processing of the Cases for Consideration of the
Review Board
(1) Every superintendent of Central/Circle/District Jail who has prisoner(s)
undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life, shall initiate the case of
prisoner at least 3 months in advance of the date when the prisoner would
become eligible for consideration of premature release as per the criteria laid
down by the State Government in that behalf.
(2) The Superintendent of the Jail shall prepare a comprehensive note in each case
giving out the family and social background of the prisoner, the offence for
which he was convicted and sentenced and the circumstances under which
the offence was committed. He will also reect fully about the conduct and
behaviour of the prisoner in the jail during the period of his incarceration,
behaviour/conduct during the period he was released on probation/leave,
also be made about his physical/mental health or any serious ailment with
which the prisoner is suffering entitling his case special consideration for his
premature release. The note shall also contain recommendation of the Jail
109
or not and in either case it shall be supported by adequate reasons.

(3) The Superintendent of Jail shall make reference to the Superintendent of
Police of the district where the prisoner was ordinarily residing at the time of
the commission of the offence, for which he was convicted and sentenced or
where he is likely to resettle after his release from Jail. However, in case the
place where the prisoner was ordinarily residing at the time of commission
of the offence is different from the place where he committed the offence, a
reference shall also be made to the Superintendent of Police of the district in
which the offence was committed. In either case he shall forward a copy of
the note prepared by him to enable the Superintendent of Police to express
his views in regard to the desirability of the premature release of the prisoner.
(4) On receipt of the reference, the concerned Superintendent of Police shall
cause an inquiry to be made in the matter through senior police ofcer
of appropriate rank and based on his own assessment shall make his
recommendations. While making the recommendations, the Superintendent
of Police shall not act mechanically and oppose the premature release of the
prisoner on untenable and hypothetical grounds/apprehensions. In case
the Superintendent of Police is not in favour of the premature release of the
prisoner, he shall justify the same with cogent reasons and material. He shall
send the reference keeping in view the general or special guidelines laid
down by the State Government to the concerned District Magistrate and the
Superintendent of Jail not later than 30 days from the receipt of the reference.
(5) On receipt of the reference of the Superintendent of Police, the concerned
District Magistrate shall either hold or cause to be held an inquiry in regard
to the desirability of premature release of the prisoner having regard to his
family and social background, his acceptability by his family members and the
society, prospects of the prisoner for rehabilitation and leading a meaningful
life as a good citizen. He will not act mechanically and recommend each
and every case for premature release. In either case he should justify his
recommendation by reasons/material. The District Magistrate shall furnish
his report/recommendation to the Superintendent of Jail not later than 30
days from the receipt of the reference.
(6) On receipt of the report/recommendation of the District Magistrate and
Superintendent of Police, the Superintendent of Jail shall put the case to I.G.
of Prisons atleast one month in advance of the proposed meeting of the State
Sentence Review Board. The Inspector General of Prisons shall examine the
case bearing in mind the report/recommendation of the Superintendent of
Jail, Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate and shall make his own
recommendations with regard to the premature release of the prisoners or
otherwise keeping in view the general or special guidelines laid down by the
Government or Sentence Review Board. Regard shall also be had to various
norms laid down and guidelines given by the Apex Court and various High
110
Courts in the matter of premature release of prisoners.

6. Procedure and Guidelines for the Review Board
(1) The Inspector General of Prisons shall convene a meeting of the State
Sentence Review Board on the date and time at Bhubaneshwar, an advance
notice of which shall be given to the Chairman and Member of the Board at
least 10 days in advance of the scheduled meeting and it shall accompany
the complete agenda papers i.e. the note of the Superintendent of Jail,
recommendation of Superintendent of Police, District Magistrate and that of
the I.G. of Prisons along with the copies of documents, if any.
(2) A meeting shall ordinarily be chaired by the Chairman and if for some
reasons he is unable to be present in the meeting, it shall be chaired by the
Secretary to Government, Law Department. The Member Secretary (I.G. of
Prisons) shall present the case of each prisoner under consideration before
the State Sentence Review Board. The Board shall consider the case and take
a view. As far as practicable the Board shall endeavour to make unanimous
recommendation. However, in case of dissent the majority view shall prevail
and will be deemed to be decision of the Board.
(3) While considering the case of premature release of a particular prisoner, the
Board shall keep in view the general principles of amnesty/remission of the
sentences as laid down by the State Government or by Courts as also the
earlier precedents in the matter. The paramount consideration before the
Sentence Review Board being the welfare of the prisoner and the society at
large. The Board shall not ordinarily decline a premature release of a prisoner
merely on the ground that the police has not recommended his release on
certain far-fetched and the circumstances in which the offence was committed
by the prisoner and whether he has the propensity and is likely to commit
similar or other offence again.
(4) Rejection of the case of a prisoner for premature release on one or more
occasions by the State Sentence Review Board will not be a bar for
reconsideration of his case. However, the reconsideration of the case of
convict already rejected shall be done only after the expiry of a period of one
year from the date of last consideration of his case.
(5) The recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board shall be placed
before the State Government without delay for consideration. The State
Government may either accept the recommendations of the Sentence Review
Board or reject the same on the grounds to be stated or may ask the Sentence
Review Board to reconsider a particular case. The decision of the State
Government shall be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent
and in case the Government has ordered to grant permission and order his
premature release, the prisoner shall be released forthwith with or without
conditions.
111
Resolution No. 7496 Dated 25.5.2005

Every convicted prisoner whether male or female undergoing sentence of
life imprisonment and covered by the provisions of section 433A Cr. P.C. shall
be eligible to be considered for premature release from the prison immediately
after serving out the sentence of 14 years of actual imprisonment, i.e., without the
remission. It is therefore, claried that completion of 14 years in prison by itself
would not entitle the convict to automatic release from the prison and the Sentence
Review Board shall have the discretion to release a convict at an appropriate time
in all cases considering the circumstances in which the crime was committed and
other relevant factors like:
(a) whether the convict has lost his potential for committing crime considering
his overall conduct in jail during the 14 years’ incarceration;
(b) the possibility of releasing the convict as a useful member of the society; and
(c) socio-economic condition of the convict's family.
Section 433A was enacted to deny premature release before completion of
14 years of actual incarceration to such convicts who stand convicted of a capital
offence. The Commission was of the view that within the category a reasonable
classication can be made on the basis of the magnitude, brutality and gravity
of the offence for which the convict was sentenced to life imprisonment. Certain
categories of convicted prisoners undergoing life sentence would be entitled to
be considered for premature release only after undergoing imprisonment for 20
years including remissions. The period of incarceration inclusive of remissions
even in such cases should not exceed 25 years. Following categories are mentioned
in this connection by way of illustration and are not to be taken as an exhaustive
list of such categories:
(a) Convicts who have been imprisoned for life for murder in heinous cases such
as murder with rape, murder with dacoity, murder involving an offence
under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 murder of a child below 14
years of age, multiple murder, murder committed after conviction while
inside the jail, murder during parole, murder in a terrorist incident, murder
in smuggling operation, murder of a public servant on duty.
(b) Gangsters, contract killers, smugglers, drug trafckers, racketeers awarded
life imprisonment for committing murder as also the perpetrators of murder
committed with premeditation and with exceptional violence or perversity.
(c) Convicts whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment.
All other convicted male prisoners not covered by Section 433A Cr.P.C.
undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment would be entitled to be considered
for premature release after they have served at least 14 years of imprisonment
inclusive of remission but only after completion of 10 years of actual imprisonment,
i.e., without remissions.
112
The female prisoners not covered by Section 433A Cr. P.C. undergoing the
sentence of life imprisonment would be entitled to be considered for premature
release after they have served at least 10 years of imprisonment inclusive of
remission but only after completion of 7 years' actual imprisonment i.e. without
remission.
Cases of premature release of persons undergoing life imprisonment before
completion of 14 years or actual imprisonment on grounds of terminal illness or
old age etc. can be dealt with under the provisions of Act. 161 of the Constitution.
SIKKIM
The Sikkim Prison Department is following the guidelines contained in the
Central Model Prison Manual, 2003.
TAMIL NADU
Premature release of convict prisoners under Advisory Board Scheme is
considered as per Rule No. 341 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983. As per
G.O. Ms. No. 1762 Home Department, dated 20.7.87 certain category of prisoners
mentioned in the said order are not eligible for premature release.
CHANDIGARH
In U.T., Chandigarh lifers are released prematurely under the provisions of
Section 433A Cr. P.C. However, term prisoners are released under the provision
of Section 432 of Cr. P.C. and under Article 72 of the Constitution of India.
DAMAN & DIU
Provisions for the premature release of prisoners are contained in Home
Department Order No. 1/62/Home-2005/546 dated 12.8.2005. The Notication
issued says that:
The Administrator of Daman & Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli is pleased
to constitute a Sentence Review Board for the review of sentence awarded to a
prisoner and for recommending his premature release in appropriate cases. The
following are members/member Secretary of Sentence Review Board alongwith
Chairman for U.T. Administration of Daman & Diu.
1. Special Secretary (Home) Chairman
2. Inspector General of Prisons & Collector, Daman Member Secretary
3. District & Sessions Judge, Daman Member
or
His/Her representative
4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Daman & Member
Diu, Daman
113
5. Law Secretary, Daman & Diu, Daman Member

6. Social Welfare Ofcer Member
The procedure for processing of the cases for consideration of the Sentence
Review Board is as under:
(i) The Superintendent of Sub Jail who has prisoner(s) undergoing sentence of
imprisonment for life, shall initiate the case of prisoner at least 3 months in
advance of the date when the prisoner would become eligible for consideration
of premature release as per the criteria laid down by the State Government in
that behalf.
(ii) The Superintendent of Sub Jail shall prepare a comprehensive note in each
case giving out the family and social background of the prisoner, the offence
for which he was convicted and sentenced and the circumstances under
which the offence was committed. He will also reect fully about the conduct
and behaviour of the prisoner in the jail during the period of his incarceration,
behaviour/conduct during the period he was released on probation/leave,
also be made about his physical, mental health or any serious ailment with
which the prisoner is suffering entitling his case special consideration for his
premature release. The note shall also contain recommendation of the Jail
or not and in either case it shall be supported by adequate reasons.'
(iii) The Superintendent of Sub Jail shall make reference to the Chief of Police
of the district where the prisoner was ordinarily residing at the time of
commission of the offence, for which he was convicted and sentenced or
where he is likely to resettle after his release from the jail. However, in case the
place where the prisoner was ordinarily residing at the time of commission
of the offence is different from the place where he committed the offence, a
reference shall also be made to the Chief of Police of the district in which the
offence was committed. In either case, he shall forward a copy of the note
prepared by him to enable the Chief of Police to express his views in regard
to the desirability of the premature release of the prisoner.
(iv) On receipt of the reference, the concerned Chief of Police shall cause an
inquiry to be made in the matter through senior Police Ofcer of appropriate
rank and based on his own assessment shall make his recommendations.
While making the recommendations the Chief of Police shall not act
mechanically and oppose the premature release of the prisoner on untenable
and hypothetical grounds/apprehensions. In case the Chief of Police is
not in favour of the premature release of the prisoner, he shall justify the
same with cogent reasons and material. He shall return the reference to the
Superintendent of the concerned Sub Jail not later than 30 days from the
114
receipt of the reference.

(v) The Superintendent of Sub Jail shall also make a reference to the Chief
Probation Ofcer of the State and shall forward to him a copy of his note.
On receipt of the reference, the Chief Probation Ofcer shall either hold
or cause to be held an inquiry through a Probation Ofcer in regard to the
desirability of premature release of the prisoner having regard to his family
and social background, his acceptability by his family members and the
society, prospects of the prisoner for rehabilitation and leading a meaningful
life as a good citizen. He will not act mechanically and recommend each
and every case for premature release. In either case he should justify his
recommendation by reasons/material. The Chief Probation Ofcer shall
furnish his report/recommendations to the Superintendent of Sub Jail not
later than 30 days from the receipt of the reference.
(vi) On receipt of the report/recommendations of the Chief of Police and Chief
Probation Ofcer, the Superintendent of Sub Jail shall put up the case to the
Inspector General of Prisons at least one month in advance of the proposed
meeting of the Sentence Review Board. The Inspector General of Prisons
shall examine the case bearing in mind the report/ recommendations of the
Superintendent of Sub Jail, Chief of Police and the Chief Probation Ofcer
and shall make his own recommendations with regard to the premature
release of the prisoner or otherwise keeping in view the general or special
guidelines laid down by the Government of the Sentence Review Board.
Regard shall also be had to various norms laid down and guidelines given by
the Apex Court and various High Courts in the matter of premature release
of prisoners.
Periodicity of the Board’s Meeting

The Sentence Review Board shall meet at least once in a quarter at the State
Headquarters on date to be notied to Members at least ten days in advance with
complete agenda papers.
of the Board more frequently as may be deemed necessary.
DELHI
In Delhi, there is a Sentencing Review Board which recommends for
the release of convicts prematurely under section 432 Cr. P.C. The Guidelines
followed by the SRB Delhi are as follows:
In supersession of this Government’s Order of even number dated 19th May,
1999 the Lt. Governor of Delhi; after carefully considering the proceedings dated
20th October, 1999, of the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi; is
pleased to constitute ‘the N.C.T. of Delhi Sentence Reviewing Board’ to review
115
the sentence awarded to a Prisoner undergoing Life sentence convicted by the

Court of Competent jurisdiction in Delhi and make recommendations to him
about cases of premature release in appropriate cases and Order follows:
1. The Composition of the Board shall be as under:
(a) Minister Incharge of Prisons Chairman
(b) Principal Secretary (Home), Government of N.C.T. of Member
Delhi
(c) Secretary Law, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi Member
(d) District and Sessions Judge, Delhi Member
(e) Chief Probation Ofcer, Government of N.C.T. of Member
Delhi
(f) A senior Police Ofcer not below the rank of I.G. of Member
Police, nominated by the Commissioner of Police
(g) Inspector General of Prisons, Central Jail, Tihar, New Member
Delhi Secretary
2. The Board shall meet at least once in a quarter at the State Headquarters on
date to be notied to Members at least ten days in advance with complete
agenda papers.
of the Board more frequently as may be deemed necessary.
3. Subject to the provision of Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 and Notication No. U-11011/2/74-UTL(I) dt. 20.3.74 of the Government
of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, the following category of convicted
Prisoners shall be eligible to be considered for premature release by the
Board:
(i) Every convicted prisoner whether male or female undergoing sentence
of life imprisonment and covered by the provisions of Section 433A Cr.
P.C. shall be eligible to be considered for premature release from the
prison immediately after serving of the sentence of 14 years of actual
imprisonment i.e. without the remissions.
(ii) All other convicted male prisoners undergoing the sentence of life
served at least 14 years of imprisonment inclusive of remissions and after
completion of 10 years of actual imprisonment i.e. without remissions.
(iii) All other convicted female prisoners undergoing the sentence of life
served at least 10 years of imprisonment inclusive of remissions and
after completion of 7 years actual imprisonment i.e. without remissions.
(iv) Convicted prisoners undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment on
attaining the age of 65 years provided he or she has served at least 7
116

(v) The convicted prisoners undergoing the sentence of imprisonment
for life and who are suffering from terminal diseases like cancer, T.B.,
AIDS, Irreversible kidney failure, cardio respiratory disease, leprosy and
any other infectious disease etc. as certied by a Board of Doctors on
completion of 5 years of actual sentence or 7 years of sentence including
remissions.
4. The following category of convicted prisoners undergoing Life Sentence may
not be considered eligible for premature release:
(i) Prisoners convicted of the offences such as rape, dacoity, terrorist crimes
etc.
(ii) Prisoners who have been convicted for organised murders in
premeditated manner and in an organised manner.
(iii) Professional murderers who have been found guilty of murder by hiring
them.
(iv) Convicts who commit murder while involved in smuggling operations
or having committed the murder of public servants on duty.
5. The following procedure shall be followed for processing the cases for
consideration of the Board:
(i) Every Superintendent of Central District Jail who has prisoner(s)
undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life shall initiate the case of
the prisoner at least 3 months in advance of the date when the prisoner
would become eligible for consideration of premature release as per the
criteria laid down by the State Government in that behalf.
(ii) The Superintendent of Jail shall prepare a comprehensive note in each
case giving out the family and societal background of the prisoner. The
offence for which he was convicted and sentenced and the circumstances
under which the offence was committed. He will also reect fully about
the conduct and behaviour of the prisoner in the jail during the period of
his incarceration, behaviour conduct during the period he was released
on probation leave, change in his behavioural pattern and the jail
offences, if any, committed by him and punishment awarded to him for
such offence(s). A report shall also be made about his physical-mental
health or special consideration for his premature release. The note shall
also contain recommendation of the Jail Superintendent whether he
favours for the premature release of the prisoner or not and in either
case it shall be supported by adequate reasons.
(iii) The Superintendent of jail shall make reference to the Deputy
Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police of the district where
the prisoner was ordinarily residing at the time of the commission of
117
the offence for which he was convicted and sentenced or where he is

likely to resettle after his release from the jail. However, in case the place
where the prisoner was ordinarily residing at the time of commission
of the offence is different from the place where he committed the
offence, a reference shall also be made to the Deputy Commissioner of
Police/Superintendent of Police of the district in which the offence was
committed. In either case, he shall forward a copy of the note prepared
by him to enable the Deputy Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of
Police to express his views in regard to the desirability of the premature
release of the prisoner.
(iv) On receipt of the reference, the concerned Deputy Commissioner of
Police/Superintendent of Police shall cause an inquiry to be made
in the matter through senior police ofcer of appropriate rank and
based on his own assessment shall make his recommendation. While
making the recommendations, the Superintendent of Police shall not
act mechanically and oppose the premature release of the prisoner
on untenable and hypothetical ground/apprehensions. In case the
concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police/the Superintendent of Police
is not in favour of the premature release of the prisoner, he shall justify
the same with cogent reasons and material. He shall return the reference
to the Superintendent of the concerned jail not later than 30 days from
the receipt of the reference.
(v) The Superintendent of Jail shall also make a reference to the Chief
Probation Ofcer and shall forward to him a copy of his note. On
receipt of the reference, the Chief Probation Ofcer shall either hold or
cause to be held an inquiry through a Probation Ofcer in regard to the
desirability of premature release of the prisoner having regard to his
family and social background, his acceptability by his family members
and the society, prospects of the prisoner for rehabilitation and leading
a meaningful life as a good citizen. He will not act mechanically and
recommend each and every case for premature release. In either case
he should justify his recommendation by reasons and material. The
Chief Probation Ofcer shall furnish his report/recommendations to
the Superintendent of Jail not later than 30 days from the receipt of the
reference.
(vi) On receipt of the report recommendations of the Deputy Commissioner
of Police/the Superintendent of Police and Chief Probation Ofcer, the
Superintendent of Jail shall put up the case to the Inspector General
of Prisons at least one month in advance of the proposed meeting of
the Sentence Review Board. The Inspector General of Prisons shall
examine the case, bearing in mind the report/recommendations of the
Superintendent of Jail. Deputy Commissioner of Police/Superintendent
118
of Police and the Chief Probation Ofcer and shall make his own
recommendations with regard to the premature release of the prisoner
or otherwise keeping in view the general or special guidelines laid down
by the Government for the Sentence Review Board. Regard shall also be
had to various norms laid down and guidelines given by the Apex Court
and various High Courts in the matter of premature release of prisoners.
6. The Board shall follow the following Procedure and Guidelines while
reviewing the cases and making its recommendation to the competent
authority:
(i) The Inspector General of Prisons shall convene a meeting of the
Sentence Review Board on a date and time at the State Headquarters, an
advance notice of which shall be given to the Chairman and Members
of the Board at least ten days in advance of the scheduled meeting
and it shall accompany the complete agenda papers i.e. the note of the
Superintendent of Jail, recommendations of the Deputy Commissioner
of Police/Superintendent of Police, Chief Probation Ofcer and that of
the Inspector General of Prisons alongwith the copies of documents, if
any.
(ii) A meeting shall ordinarily be chaired by the Chairman and if for some
reasons he is unable to be present in the meeting, it shall be chaired by the
Principal Secretary (Home). The Member Secretary (Inspector General
of Prisons) shall present the case of each prisoner under consideration
before the Sentence Review Board. The Board shall consider the case
and take a view. As far as practicable, the Sentence Reviewing Board
shall endeavour to make unanimous recommendation. However, in case
of a dissent, the majority view shall prevail and will be deemed to be
decision of the Board.
(iii) While considering the case of premature release of a particular prisoner,
the Board shall keep in view the general principles of amnesty/remission
of the sentence as laid down by the Government or by Courts as also the
Sentence Review Board being the welfare of the prisoner and the society
at large. The Board shall not ordinarily decline a premature release of a
prisoner merely on the ground that the police have not recommended
his release on certain farfetched and hypothetical premises. The board
shall take into account the circumstances in which the offence was
committed by the prisoner and whether he has the propensity and is
likely to commit similar or other offence again.
(iv) Rejection of the case of a prisoner for premature release on one or
more occasions by the Sentence Review Board will not be a bar for
reconsideration of his case. However, the reconsideration of the case of
a convict already rejected shall be done only after the expiry of a period
119
of one year from the date of last consideration of his case.

(v) The recommendation of the Sentence Review Board shall be placed
before the competent authority without delay for consideration. The
competent authority may either accept the recommendations of the
Sentence Review Board or reject the same on the grounds to be stated
or may ask the Sentence Review Board to reconsider a particular case.
The decision of the competent authority shall be communicated to the
concerned prisoner and in case the Competent authority has ordered to
grant remission and order his premature release, the prisoner shall be
released forthwith with or without conditions.
PORT BLAIR
The provisions and the mechanism for the premature release of prisoners
are contained in Chapter XVIII of the Prison Manual of Andaman and Nicobar
Island, 2004. The information is as under:
The Primary objective underlying premature release is reformation of
offenders and their rehabilitation and integration into the society, while at the
same time ensuring the protection of society from criminal activities. These two
aspects are closely interlinked. Incidental to the same is the conduct, behaviour
and performance of prisoners while in prison. These have a bearing on their
rehabilitative potential and the possibility of their being released by virtue of
remission earned by them, or by an order granting them premature release. The
most important consideration for pre-mature release of prisoners is that they have
become harmless and useful member of a civilized society. For the purpose of
recommending the premature release of prisoners in each state a Sentence Review
Board should be set up to advise the government.
Composition of the State Sentence Review Board

Each State/U.T. shall constitute a Sentence Review Board to review the
sentences awarded to prisoners and for recommending premature release in
appropriate cases. There shall be a Review Board having the following members,
and two Non-ofcial members nominated by the Administrator (i.e. Lt. Governor
of A & N Islands). The Non-ofcial members' terms of ofce shall be for a period
of 02 years from the date of their nomination.
(i) Inspector General (Prisons) A & N Administration, Port Blair Chairman
(ii) Hon’ble District & Session Judge A & N Islands Member
(iii) Chief Judicial Magistrate Andaman District, Port Blair Member
(iv) District Magistrate Andaman District, Port Blair Member
(v) Superintendent of Police Andaman District, Port Blair Member
(vi) Superintendent of District Jail, Port Blair Member
Secretary
120
Quorum
The cases put forward to the Sentence Review Board shall be reviewed even
when one or more members of the Board are not able to attend the meeting or
when there is a vacancy on the Board. The quorum shall comprise of 4 members
and the Board shall not take any decisions when the quorum is not complete.

The State Sentence Review Board shall meet at least once in two months at
the State Headquarter on a date to be notied to its members at least 10 days in
advance by the Inspector General of Prisons. The notice of such a meeting shall be
accompanied by complete agenda papers.
However the Chairman can convene a meeting of the Board more frequently,
even at short notice, if necessary.
Eligibility for Premature Release

The following categories of prisoners shall be eligible to be considered for a
review of sentences and premature release by the State Sentence Review Boards:
(i) Women offenders sentenced for infanticide: their cases should be reviewed
immediately on admission in prison and they should be sent to the care of
voluntary organizations of good repute for a reasonable period of time.
(ii) Women offenders who have committed crime under compulsion and/or
under social and cultural pressures: their cases should also be reviewed
immediately on admission in prison for sending them to the care of voluntary
organizations of good repute.
(iii) Women offenders sentenced to life imprisonment: on completion of seven
years of imprisonment, including remission, except those covered under
Section 433A of Cr. P.C. 1973, whose cases will be considered only after
completing 14 years of actual imprisonment.
(iv) Life convicts (men and adolescent offenders) on completion of 10 years of
imprisonment, including remission, except those covered under Section
433A of Cr. P.C. 1973, whose cases will be considered only after completing
14 years of actual imprisonment.
(v) Non-habitual male and adolescent offenders, (other than those sentenced
to imprisonment for life), sentenced to undergo more than one year of
imprisonment, on undergoing half of their substantive sentence, including
remission, subject to the condition that they shall not be actually released
unless they have undergone at least one year of sentence including remission.
(vi) Non-habitual women offenders, (other than those sentenced to imprisonment
for life), sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than one year, on
undergoing half of their substantive sentence, including remission, whichever
121
is less. This would be subject to the condition that they shall not be actually
released unless they have undergone at least one year’s imprisonment
including remission.
(vii) Habitual offenders, (other than those sentenced to imprisonment for life),
sentenced to ve years or more of imprisonment, on completion of two-
thirds of their sentence including remission, subject to the condition that
they shall not be released unless they have undergone at least ve years of
imprisonment including remission.
(viii) Prisoners convicted of offences such as rape, dacoity, terrorist crimes,
kidnapping, smuggling (including those convicted under NDPS Act),
Prevention of Corruption Act, Immoral Trafc Prevention Act, offences
against State, and undergoing life imprisonment, after completion of 14
years of sentence inclusive of remission.
(ix) Prisoners convicted of offences mentioned in para (viii), other than those
sentenced to imprisonment for life, or to a term of imprisonment of ve
years and above, after completing three-fourths of the sentence including
remission, subject to the condition that they shall not be released unless they
have undergone at least ve years of sentence including remission.
(x) Old (above 65 years of age) and inrm offenders (other than those sentenced
to imprisonment for life) sentenced to imprisonment for one year and more
on completion of one third of the substantive sentence including remission,
subject to the condition that they shall not be actually released unless they
have undergone at least one year of imprisonment including remission.
(xi) Offenders certied by a designated Medical Board to be suffering from
incurable diseases likely to prove fatal, whenever such a situation arises.
Review Board
On admission into a prison of a prisoner eligible for eventual consideration
by the Board under the rules, the Superintendent shall write to the convicting
court for copies of the judgment of the original court as well as the appellate
courts. He shall also write to the District Magistrate of the district in which
the prisoner’s home is situated, or in which the prisoner usually resides, for
information regarding his/her antecedents.
(i) Every Superintendent in charge of a prison shall initiate the case of a prisoner
at least three months in advance of his/her becoming eligible for consideration
for premature released as per the criteria laid down by the State Government.
(ii) The Superintendent of Prison shall prepare a comprehensive note for each
prisoner, giving his/her family and societal background, the offence for
which he/she was convicted and sentenced and the circumstances under
which the offence was committed. The Superintendent shall also reect fully
on the conduct and behaviour of the prisoner in the prison during the period
122
of his/her incarceration and during his/her release on probation/leave,

change in his/her behavioural pattern and prison offences, if any, committed
by him/her and punishment awarded to him/her for such offences. A report
shall also be made about his/her physical and mental health or any serious
ailment with which the prisoner is suffering, entitling him/her for premature
release as a special case. The note shall also contain recommendation of the
Superintendent, i.e., whether he favours the premature release of the prisoner
or not. In either case such recommendation shall be supported by adequate
reasons.
(iii) The Superintendent shall make a reference to the District Magistrate/
Superintendent of Police of the district where the prisoner was residing
at the time of committing the offence (for which he/she was convicted
and sentenced) or where he/she is likely to resettle after release from the
prison. However, in case the place of his/her residence is not where he/
she committed the offence, a reference shall also be made to the District
Magistrate/Superintendent of Police of the district in which the offence was
committed. The Superintendent shall forward a copy of the note to enable the
District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police to express their views regarding
the desirability of the premature release of the prisoner.
(iv) On receipt of the reference, the concerned District Magistrate/Superintendent
of Police shall have an inquiry made in the matter through senior ofcers
of appropriate ranks and shall make their recommendations based on their
assessment from such inquiry. While making the recommendations the
District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police shall not act mechanically and
oppose the premature release of a prisoner on untenable and hypothetical
assumptions. In case the Superintendent of Police is not in favour of
premature release of the prisoner, he shall justify the same with cogent and
material reasons. They shall return the reference to the Superintendent of the
concerned prison within 30 days of the receipt of the reference.
(v) On receipt of the report/recommendations of the District Magistrate
Superintendent of Police and the Probation Ofcer, the Superintendent of the
Prison shall put up the case to the Inspector General of Prisons at least one
month in advance of the proposed meeting of the Sentence Review Board.
The Inspector General of Prisons shall examine the case, bearing in mind
the report/recommendations of the Superintendent of the Prison, the District
Magistrate/Superintendent of Police and the Probation Ofcer, and make
his/her recommendations regarding the premature release of a prisoner
or otherwise. While doing so he/she keeps in view the general or special
guidelines laid down by the Government for the Sentence Review Board.
The various norms laid down and guidelines given by the Supreme Court of
India and various High Courts in the matter of premature release of prisoners
shall also be given due consideration.
123
Other Cases of Premature Release

When a convicted prisoner, in the opinion of a Medical Board is in danger of
death from sickness (not due to an infectious disease) with no hope of recovery
within or outside the prison, the Superintendent shall report the fact to the
Inspector General of Prisons if it is considered desirable to allow such prisoner
the comfort of dying at home.
If the unexpired period of the prisoner’s sentence does not exceed six months,
the Inspector General of Prisons may direct his/her immediate release after
making personal inquiries into the case and consulting the District Magistrate of
that district.
If the unexpired period of the prisoner’s sentence exceeds six months, the
Inspector General of Prisons shall immediately report the facts of the case, along
with recommendations, to the Government.
No prisoner, without any friends or relatives willing to take charge of him/
her shall be released under this rule.
This rule shall not apply to a prisoner who goes on a hunger strike. A prisoner
or hunger strike shall in no circumstances be released.
If a Medical Board considers that a convicted prisoner is in danger of dying
from illness (not due to an infectious disease), and that there is a probability of
his/her recovery when released, he shall furnish a certicate to that effect. On
receipt of the certicate the Superintendent shall immediately report the fact
to the Inspector General of Prisons. He shall also at the same time send for the
prisoner’s relatives or friends and ascertain whether they are willing to look after
him. If so, he shall take from them a security bond to the effect that in the event of
the prisoner being prematurely released on account of illness, they will give him/
her up at any time they may be required to do.
If the unexpired period of the sentence of the prisoner does not exceed two
years, the Inspector General of Prisons may direct his/her immediate release after
making personal inquiries into the case and consulting the concerned District
Magistrate.
If the unexpired sentence to the prisoner exceeds two years, the Inspector
General of Prisons shall immediately report the facts of the case with his
recommendations, to the Government.
If the unexpired portion of the sentence exceeds two years, or if the Inspector
General of Prisons thinks the prisoner should not be released, he shall report the
facts of the case, with his opinion, to the Government for orders.
If a prisoner detained solely under a sentence of Imprisonment in default
of furnishing security to maintain peace or for good behaviour, is so seriously
124
ill that he/she is likely to do whatever be term of his unexpired sentence, the
Superintendent shall refer the case to the District Magistrate of the district, in case
the order is passed by an Executive Magistrate, or to the Court of Sessions, in case
the order has been passed by a Judicial Magistrate, for necessary orders of release
under Section 123 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Every case of release under these rules shall immediately be reported to
the Inspector General of Prisons, who shall report to the Government all such
releases that have been made without the special sanction of the Government. A
descriptive roll of the prisoner released shall also be submitted in duplicate along
with such report.
If the friends or relatives of a sick or dying prisoner, whose release has been
sanctioned under above rules, express their inability to meet the expenses of a
journey to the prison, the prisoner may be transferred, if t to travel, in anticipation
of sanction of the Head of Prisons Department/Inspector General of Prisons, to
the prison of the district where he/she shall stay, provided that no prisoner shall
be so transferred to any district beyond the jurisdiction of the U/T without the
special sanction of the U/T Government concerned.
In the event of such a prisoner dying before he/she can be released, the death
shall be recorded in the records of the prison from which he/she was transferred.
Procedure and Guidelines for the Review Board

The Inspector General of Prisons shall convene a meeting of the Sentence
Review Board on a xed date and time. Notice of such meeting shall be given
to the Chairman and Members of the Board at least ten days in advance and
such notice shall be accompanied by complete agenda papers, i.e., the note of
the Superintendent of Prison, recommendations of the District Magistrate/
Superintendent of Police and that of the Inspector General of Prisons along with
copies of other necessary documents, if any.
The meeting shall ordinarily be chaired by the Chairman and if, for some
reasons, he/she is unable to be present, it shall be chaired by Hon’ble District
& Session Judge. The Member Secretary shall present the case of each prisoner
under consideration before the Sentence Review Board. The Board shall consider
each case and give its views. As far as practicable, the Sentence Review Board
shall make unanimous recommendations. However in case of dissent, the
majority view shall prevail and will be deemed to be the decision of the Board. If
equal numbers of members are of opposing views, the decision of the Chairman
will be nal.
While considering the case of premature release of a particular prisoner
the Board shall keep in view the general principles of amnesty, remission of
sentences, as laid down by the State Government or by the courts, as also the
125

Sentence Review Board being the welfare of the prisoner and the society at large.
The Board shall not ordinarily decline a premature release of a prisoner merely
on the ground that the police have not recommended his/her release on certain
far-fetched and hypothetical assumptions. The Board shall take into account the
circumstances in which the offence was committed by the Prisoner and whether
he/she has the propensity to commit similar or other offences again.
Rejection of the case of a prisoner for premature release on one or more
occasions by the Sentence Review Board will not be a bar for its reconsideration.
However, the reconsideration of the case of a convict rejected once shall be
done only after a period of six months, or as specied by Review Board, but not
more than two years from the date of its last consideration. A fresh report from
the Superintendent will be necessary for such reconsideration. However, fresh
reports from the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police will be required
after ve years only. Reconsideration of the case will be done on the basis of the
conduct of the prisoner in the intervening period, rather than on the material on
the basis of which his/her case was rejected earlier.
The recommendation of the Sentence Review Board shall be placed before
the competent authority i.e. Lt. Governor without any delay for consideration.
The competent authority may either accept the recommendations of the Sentence
Review Board or reject the same on the grounds to be stated or may ask the
Sentence Review Board to reconsider a particular case. The decision of the
competent authority shall be communicated to the concerned prisoner and in case
the competent authority has ordered to grant remission, and order his premature
release, the prisoner shall be released forthwith (with or without conditions).
Monitoring of Cases
A computerized record of all the prisoners serving sentence in the prisons,
for a follow up of their cases, is extremely desirable in every prison as well as
at the Prisons Headquarters and at the Home of Prison Department of the State
Government. The monitoring system should be based on the following guidelines:
(i) There should be a single le system for the case of every prisoner. Such les
shall be maintained at the prison institution.
(ii) This le will have a complete record of information regarding the
consideration of a prisoner’s premature release on any grounds in previous
occasions and the date of reconsideration of the case.
(iii) Only one ground for a prisoner’s premature release shall be considered at a
time.
(iv) Full record of information regarding the stage of each prisoner’s premature
release shall be kept in a register prescribed for the purpose as well in
126
computers.
(v) Monitoring of all cases shall be done every month at the prison level, every
three months at Prisons headquarter level and every six months at the
Government level.
Record Relating to Review of Sentences and Premature Release

Immediately on admission of a convict, eligible for being considered for
premature release, the Superintendent of the institution should get a copy of the
judgment in his/her case from the court and open a le. This le should contain:
(i) Copies of the judgments of the original court and the appellate court.
(ii) A data sheet containing information, viz., name of the convict, his/her
number, age at the time of the sentence, previous occupation, offences,
sentences, date of sentence, sentencing court, sentence undergone, unexpired
sentence and remission earned.
(iii) History of his/her family background, economic background, habits,
attitudes, etc.
(iv) Report of the Superintendent giving particulars about the education progress,
performance at work and vocational training, interest in recreational and
cultural activities, discipline, group adjustability, conduct, attitude towards
society and family members, conduct during release on leave, need for an
after-care programme, and the manner in which the convict proposes to
resettle after his/her premature release.
(v) Medical report about the physical and mental condition of the offender,
serious illness, if any, suffered by him/her, and his/her tness for premature
release.
(vi) Opinion of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police of district of
residence, or of the place of committing the crime, about the suitability of the
offender for premature release.
(vii) Recommendation of the Review Board.
(viii)Order of the government.
(ix) Bond furnished by the prisoner.
(x) Conditions of release duly signed by the prisoner.
Positive and Negative Aspects of the Premature Release of

Prisoners
The opinions and views expressed by the Director Generals of Prisons
in different States emphasise the following positive and negative aspects of
premature release of prisoners:
127
State Positive Aspects Negative Aspects

Andhra Release of prisoners prematurely either Haphazard and
Pradesh on specied conditions or unconditionally indiscriminate release
is prevalent in almost all countries. would affect the
Premature release is an accepted mode functioning of the
of incentive to a prisoner as it saves him prison system and
from extra period of incarceration which public will lose faith
on the one hand is not needed for his in the system.
reformation or rehabilitation and on
the other may be counter-productive. It
reinstitutes an offender in the society prior
to the expiry of his sentence in recognition
of his good conduct and responsiveness,
to correctional treatment. The purpose
is to snap off incarceration as soon as
institutional treatment is considered no
longer necessary. This system of premature
release drives the blind mechanical aspects
out of the execution of xed sentences and
renders them somewhat indeterminate
and purposeful in relation to reformation
and rehabilitation
A r u n a c h a l “No Comments” No prisoner has been “No Comments”
Pradesh released during the last ve years
Himan ch al 1. Regular Premature releases of There are no negative
Pradesh prisoners create feeling of reformation aspects of this policy
in other prisoners as they tend to reform in view of section
themselves in order to be released from 433A of Cr. P.C.
prison
2. Prisoner after release can support and
sustain their families
3. Old aged and inrm prisoners will not
die in jails and unnecessary governmental
expenditure on their medication could
be avoided and administrative problems
could be lessened
4. Problem of overcrowding in jails could
be relieved.
Jammu & Rehabilitation; providing another Personality of
Kashmir opportunity for the prisoners to behave individual is
as a responsible citizen of the nation helps dynamic. Recidivism
in revival of their social web and ultimate also possible though
resocialization. Family gets back the bread not prevalent in J & K
earner and the additional strength. State
128
Karnataka 1. Useful for the family 1. Not a good message

2. Security for the family to criminals
3. Civilized gesture of the Govt. towards 2. People think easy
its people of committing crime
Orissa Reformation of offenders and their -
rehabilitation and integration in the
society
Sikkim This system helps prisoners in their day- Nothing to mention
to-day conduct and reform themselves in
the hope of getting released prematurely
Tamil Nadu 1. Only well behaved prisoners are being 1. There is some
considered for premature release under delay in getting the
the present system. reports of the District
2. Prisoners who were convicted for certain Collector concerned
heinous offences are not considered for and also convening
premature release under the present the Advisory Board
system. meeting which has to
3. The social history of the prisoner, the be presided over by
circumstances of his criminal behaviour, the District Collector.
conduct in prison, response to training The Collectors
and treatment, notable changes in his concerned can be
attitude, degree of criminality, health requested in the
and mental condition and the possibility aspect of sending
of resettlement are considered by the reports/convening
Advisory Board. meetings.
2. Prisoners who
are having partial
convictions in the
heinous offences
are also held up in
considering their
premature release for
life sentence awarded
in provoked offences.
Suggestions can be
made to Government
to insist purely the
convictions under
heinous offences.
3. Nil
129
Chandigarh When a person is convicted and spends Sometimes some

over a decade behind the bars, mostly dreaded criminals
he gets reformed and for rehabilitation who have no feeling
it is necessary to give him opportunity of remorse and
to lead a normal life and form a part of get hardened after
the society. Further, not only a convict spending so many
suffers during his imprisonment, but his years behind bars are
family members also suffer with none of released and form
their faults. As the aim and purpose of a part of society,
prison system is correctional/reformatory create the condition
and not punitive so premature release of of lawlessness and
a convict after serving quite a long time organized crime. In
behind bars serves the purpose. a country like ours
they form nexus with
other criminals and
pose danger to the
society.
Delhi  Section 432 Cr. P.C. permits the  No prisoner
government to suspend or remit without any
execution of a sentence or any friends or
part of punishment to which relatives
he has been sentenced with or willing to
without condition. This section take charge of
indicates the clear intention of him/her can
the legislature to confer a power be released
to suspend or remit a sentence. prematurely.
It is not open to the government  No life
after remitting a sentence convict can
unconditionally to restore it. be released
 The premature release underlines early unless
the objective of reformation, their he has spent
reformation and integration to the 14 years in
society. jail excluding
 There shall be reduction in remission
maintenance cost upon the in view of
prisoners by the government Section 433A
specically in cases of old, sick Cr. P.C.
and inrm prisoners.
130
Port Blair The primary objective of premature The victims do not

release is reformation of offender and his like the accused to
Rehabilitation and Resocialization into the come back from the
society as a law abiding citizen. The prison prison. There is a
department is to become the Correctional chance of favoritism.
Home, and entire focus is towards the
correctional policies alongwith the prime
objectives of safe custody and security of
the prisoner as well as the society. So it is
necessary to motivate the prisoner towards
positive aspects. By evaluating the good
behaviour, good work, leadership quality,
courageness and faithfulness etc, the Jail
administration is providing the chance to
release the prisoner prematurely.
Opinion About the Need for Streamlining the System of Premature

Release of Prisoners
State Opinion
Yes No
Andhra Release of convicts on Probation should be enacted -
Pradesh Criteria for premature release of women prisoners
should be liberal
Arunachal No Comments No Com-
Pradesh ments
Himachal  A denite time frame should be xed at -
Pradesh every level of processing of premature re-
lease of prisoners
 Premature release case of a prisoner should
be identied at least 8 months prior to the
prisoner becoming eligible and the veri-
ed reports from the concerned authorities
should be time-bound.
 Departmental training to avoid delay in such
cases should be conducted for concerned of-
cials to enable them to appreciate the im-
port of this policy in public interest
Jammu & The scheme should not be restricted to the specic -
Kashmir occasion and for specic category of inmates as be-
ing practiced, but should be regular feature of crimi-
nal justice system for all prisoners and needs further
strengthening.
Karnataka It should be done through Standing Advisory Boards -
and the recommendation of the Prison Department
131
Orissa - It is already
stream-
lined in our
State.
Sikkim - No stream-
lining is
needed in
view of the
Model Pris-
on Manual
2003.
Tamil Nadu Yes (Measures not suggested) -
Chandigarh In the State of Punjab the lifers are released after the
completion of 8½, 10, 14 years of actual sentence as
per the provision of Section 432 and 433 of Cr. P.C.
and Article 161 of Constitution of India whereas in
U.T. Chandigarh the lifers are released after the com-
pletion of 14 years actual sentence as per the provi-
sion of Section 433-A of Cr. P.C. as the Chandigarh
has not its own legislature. The Mercy petitions are
considered by the President of India under Article 72
of the Constitution of India who is empowered to re-
mit full or part of the sentence.
Dadra & - -
Nagar
Haveli
Daman & - -
Diu
Delhi - No
Port Blair  Age, offences, criminal background, sex and
chances for reformation are the factors for
premature release.
 The life imprisonment prisoners who are suf-
fering from serious disease and the same is
certied by the Medical Board should be re-
leased from jail without any conditions.
 At present as per the Section 433-A Cr. P.C.
all life imprisonment prisoners should un-
dergo 14 years of actual imprisonment for
consideration of premature release and it
should be streamlined accordingly to the
aforesaid cases.
Role of Prison Department and State Department in the Streamlining of the
System of Premature Release
132
State Role of Prison Department Role of the State Department

Andhra The Department should adopt the The Government should
Pradesh measures suggested by the All devise a proper scheme. They
India Committee at Annexure ‘B’ should enact “Release of
page 249 Convicts on Probation” as a
solution.
Arunachal - -
Pradesh
Himachal  Prison Department A denite time
Pradesh should initiate the cases period for
of all eligible prisoners verication reports/
8 months prior to their rec ommen dations
becoming eligible. should be xed
 D e p a r t m e n t a l for concerned
instructions for District Magistrate,
processing such type of Superintendent of
cases be also issued. Police and Chief
Probation Ofcer.
 Weightage should be
given to all the reports
regarding the convict's
overall conduct before
and after conviction.
Jammu & Establishment of Research and Analyse the scheme/proposals
Kashmir Development wings and such positively with speedy
wings are required to be created disposal of the cases.
at Headquarter for proper
suggestions/proposals
Karnataka Condition of earning remission, -
education upto 7th standard and at
least 5 vocational training inside
the prison be made compulsory.
Orissa - -
Sikkim There is nothing to be done by Nothing to comment.
Prison Department as the system
itself encourages the prisoner
to behave themselves properly
for the hope of getting released
prematurely.
133
Tamil Nadu At present remissions awarded The State Government while

to life convicts by the prison considering remission under
authorities are not taken into Article 161 of the Constitution
consideration while awarding of India as well as under
premature release in Tamil Nadu. 432 Cr. P.C. may direct such
premature releases by taking
into account the remission
awarded by the Prison
authorities.
Chandigarh - The Chandigarh
Administration has hardly any
jurisidiction over the subject
because any amendment could
be carried out by the Parliament
as Chandigarh being a city
State has no legislature of
its own. However, efforts
may kindly be made to
effect the change on Punjab
consultations/collaboration
with the Government of India.
Dadra & - -
N a g a r
Haveli
Daman & - -
Diu
Delhi The State Government has The Guidelines are quite
prepared exhaustive guidelines exhaustive and have negligible
for considering the cases of life scope for any intervention.
convicts for their premature
release. The Prison department
follows the same and places the
cases of eligible prisoners as per
the guidelines prepared.
Port Blair  The role of voluntary  G o v e r n m e n t
organization working for should relax the
the welfare of prisoners rules regarding the
should be considered. resettlement of the
 The NGOs may be released prisoner as
contacted for organizing well as for the victim
programme of so that they can earn
counselling for livelihood.
rehabilitation.  A scheme may be
introduced especially
for the prematurely
released prisoners.
134
Role of Prison Department and State Department in the Streamlining of the

System of Premature Release
State Prison Level Headquarter Government Level
Level
Andhra D i s c o n t e n t , There are no In absence of
Pradesh frustration and problems as such regular procedure,
disabusement the Government is
among prisoners as resorting to invoking
reports from District powers of Governor for
ofcials are not premature release of
received in time prisoners
Arunachal - - -
Pradesh
Himachal Reports of DM/SP/ Incomplete cases -
Pradesh Gram Panchayat are received, this
Pradhan /Probation causes delay.
Ofcer are not
received in time.
Jammu & At times objective Coordination at Nothing specic.
Kashmir and fair evaluation different levels However, the State
in forwarding cases is minimum as Govt. remission that
is lacking the response may also help in
from police and advance release of
judiciary prisoners is covered
under statutory
provisions is not being
accorded regularly.
Karnataka - - -
Orissa Judgment copy D i s t r i c t -
of both the courts Magistrate/
(Sessions and High S u p er i n t e n d en t
Court) are not of Police are not
received by the furnishing their
prisoner in time. recommendations
in time.
Sikkim - - -
Tamil Nadu There is some delay in getting - -
the reports of the District
Collector concerned and also
in getting his appointment
so as to convene the Board
Meeting which is presided
over by the District Collector.
135
Chandigarh The prisoners of Chandigarh The premature -

Jail have time and again release of the
represented that Punjab Policy lifers conned
regarding the premature in Model Jail,
release may kindly be Chandigarh
adopted. The Jail authorities considered by
had taken up the matter with the Chandigarh
Chandigarh Administration administration
so many times, but no decision as per procedure
has been taken till date. laid down in
para 431 of the
revised Punbaj
Jail Manual and
Mercy petition
under Articles,
161/72 of the
Constitution
of India under
S e c t i o n s
432,433,433A of
the Cr. P.C. 1973.
This system is
also continuing
in Punjab State
and we are
bound to follow
the Punjab as
we have already
adopted the
revised Punjab
Jail Manual on
1.4.97. Here
it may be
added that UT
Chandigarh
being a compact
area, has not
framed its own
Jail Manual and
in such matter
the revised
Punjab Jail
Manual is being
followed.
136
Dadra & - - -
N a g a r
Haveli
Daman & - - -
Diu
Delhi The information from jails Problem of the At the
is received in time but social Headquarter Govern men t
investigation reports from level are common level though
Chief Probation Ofcer and as far Delhi is convicts are
Police verication reports are concerned. ordered to
seldom received in time. This be released
takes lot of time in processing pr ema tu r ely ,
the cases of the prisoners and but their
placing them before SRB. releases are
contingent
up on their
furnishing
two sureties.
The convicts
in jail for more
than 14 years
naturally lose
their contacts
and are unable
to meet the
stringent
s e c u r i t y
conditions.
This defeats the
very purpose
of premature
release as
prisoners are
unable to get
the benet.
Port Blair - - -
137
Other Comments/Observations
Andhra Pradesh Section 433A Cr. P.C. is forcing the Government
to resort to invoking powers of Governor. As
suggested by All India Committee on Prison
Reform, 10 years can be taken as period at which
the premature release of prisoner undergoing life
sentence can be considered.
 Prisoners other than lifers can be considered for
premature release after completion of 1/3rd of
actual sentence or ½ of the sentence with remission.
Arunachal Pradesh -
Himachal Pradesh Under the premature release policy, every convict’s case
should be sympathetically considered taking into account
his past record in the interest of his family members.
Jammu & Kashmir On the eve of each meeting considering special remission
or premature release of prisoners the other party(s) i.e.
victim(s) approach and agitate against the move. This
should be rebutted
Karnataka Remission must play important role in this regard for the
reformation and rehabilitation, so as to enable the prisoners
to try to change their behaviour and earn early release.
Orissa -
Sikkim -
Tamil Nadu  A Central Committee may be constituted to watch
the uniformity of premature releases effected in
the States.
 The orphan convicts whose cases are considered
for premature release may be handed over to the
willing non-government organizations.
Chandigarh -
Dadra & Nagar -
Haveli
Daman & Diu -
Delhi The Prison Department recommends that if a convict has
a good conduct in the jail and has excelled in any vocation
and there are scant chances for recidivism, he/she should
be released on personal bonds.
Port Blair Premature release of the prisoner is a correctional policy.
The role of NGOs, voluntary organizations etc. are also
important and Government should recognize their work
and they should be encouraged through different measures
for release of prisoners on probation.
138
Chapter – 8
Premature Release of Prisoners In U.P.

In the State of Uttar Pradesh, the system of premature release of prisoners
comprises of the following mechanisms, the details of which are given below:
(1) Release on Mercy Basis
(2) Release on Licence under the United Provinces Prisoners’ Release on
Probation Action, 1938
(3) Release of sick/inrm/aged prisoners
(4) Release of prisoners under 14 year Rule
(5) Release of prisoners on special occasion, i.e. Independence Day, Republic
Day etc.
(1) Release on Mercy Basis

The recent Government Order No. 660/22-2-2005-17(346)/92 dated 13.4.1995
outlines the procedure established by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for the
Premature release of. prisoners except in the cases of death sentence.
Under Article-161 of Constitution of India the Governor of Uttar Pradesh has
allowed the establishment of a Committee for disposal of the cases of premature
release under Form-A Nominal Role and Mercy cases. The composition of the
Committee is as follows:
1. Chairman
Principal Secretary, Prison Administration and Correction Department of
Government of Uttar Pradesh.
2. Member
Secretary, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh.
3. Member
Special Secretary, Justice and Legal Aid Department nominated by the
Principal Secretary, Justice and Legal Aid Department of Government of Uttar
Pradesh.
4. Member Secretary
Director General, Prison Administration and Correctional Services, Uttar
Pradesh.
The Board will submit its recommendations to the Government of Uttar
Pradesh for the nal decision.
139
While using the release order on mercy basis the board will consider
following:
1. Period of sentence undergone by the convict
2. Conduct of the Convict in Prison
3. Conduct of the Convict during Home leave/Parole/Bail period.
4. Health and age of the Convict
5. Nature and Circumstances of crime committed by the prisoner.
6. Judgement of the Court.
7. Suitability of the Socio-Economic conditions of the family of prisoner for
premature release.
8. Fitness of the prisoner regarding chance of crime commission again.
9. Does the category of the crime committed by the prisoner falls in the category
of single crime without making much adverse effect on society?
10. Is there any chance of commission of crime by the prisoner in future?
11. Is there any necessary purpose of detaining the prisoner in the jail?
The process of premature release of prisoner will be initiated by the jail
Superintendent alongwith the Judgment Copy to the Board for its approval.
After receiving the Mercy Application, the Jail Superintendent will make
available the jail report of the prisoner to the Director General, Prison within
a week’s time for the submission of the Mercy Application. The Report of the
Superintendent of Jail shall be accompanied by the copy of the judgment of
Sessions Court/High Court/Supreme Court, alongwith information on the
following points:
1. Name, Age, Address, Crime and crime history of the convict.
2. The summary of the Judgement and, if courts have given any specic
direction, then the details of the direction given.
3. Complete details of the behaviour of the convict during imprisonment.
4. Comments on any other important point relating to the premature release of
the prisoner.
The Board will collect the report from District Magistrate/Superintendent of
Police on these points:
1. Circumstances of the crime commission, dispute associated with the crime
and present status of the situation.
2. Pre-crime history and character/behaviour of the convict.
3. Socio-economic condition of the convict and his/her family.
4. Chances and opportunities of Committing crime again and their bases.
5. If there is any objection in the premature release of prisoner, then clear
140
reasons and their basis be stated.

6. Convict’s behaviour during the period of Home leave/Parole/Bail.
The Committee shall not consider the Mercy Application for the premature
release of such prisoners whose death penalty has already been converted into
life imprisonment. In addition, the Committee shall not ordinarily consider the
Mercy Application of the following categories of prisoners:
1. Convicts of rape, Dacoity and Terrorism.
2. Convicts of Pre-planned and organized crimes of murder.
3. Habitual Murderers (Contract Killers).
4. Convicts punished for the murder during smuggling.
5. Convicts punished for the murder of Public Servants while on duty.
The Board meeting will be organized quarterly but with the permission of
the chairman the meeting can be organized any time.
Prisoners’ Release on Probation Act

The United Provinces Prisoners’ Release on Probation Act, 1938 provides
for the conditional release from prison of prisoners in certain cases before the
completion of the term of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced. Such
releases are made under Section-2, and Section-8, of the Act.
Power of Government to Release by Licence on Condition imposed

by them
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 432 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 where a person is conned in prison under a sentence of
imprisonment and it appears to the State Government from his antecedents
and his conduct in the prison that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a
peaceable life. If he is released from prison, the State Government may be licence
permit him to be released on condition that he be placed under the supervision
or authority of a Government Ofcer or of a person professing the same religion
as the prisoner, or such secular institution or such society belonging to the same
religion as the prisoner as may be recognized by the State Government for this
purpose, provided such other person, institution or society is willing to take
charge of him.
Period for which licence is to be in force

A licence granted under the provisions of section 2 remains in force until the
date on which the person released would in the execution of the order of warrant
authorizing his imprisonment have been discharged from prison had he not been
released on licence, or until the licence is revoked, whichever is earlier.
141
Period of release to be reckoned as imprisonment for computing

period of sentence served
The period during which a person is absent from prison under the provisions
of this Act on a licence which is in force shall be reckoned as part of the period
of imprisonment to which he was sentenced, for the purpose of computing the
period of his sentence and for the purpose of computing the amount of remission
of sentence which might be awarded to him under any rules in force relating to
such remissions.
Form of licence
A licence granted under this provision of section 2 shall be in such form and
shall contain such conditions as the State Government may by general or special
order or by rules made in this behalf, direct.
Power to revoke licence

(1) The State Government may at any time for reasons to be recorded in writing
revoke a licence granted under the provisions of section 2:
Provided that no licence shall be revoked on the ground of the breach of a
condition of the licence without giving an opportunity to the person concerned
to represent his case before the District Magistrate of the district in which he is
residing at the time.
(2) An order of revocation passed under the provisions of sub-section (1) shall
specify the date with effect from which the licence shall cease to be in force,
and shall be served, in such manner as the State Government may by rule
prescribe, upon the person whose licence has been revoked.
Released absconders who escape from supervision to be

punishable
If any person escapes from the supervision or authority of a Government
ofcer or secular institution or a society or person in whose charge he has been
placed under the provisions of section 2, or if any person whose licence has been
revoked under the provisions of section 6, fails, without lawful excuse, the burden
of proving which shall be upon him, to return to the prison from which he was
released, on or before the date specied in the order of revocation such person
shall on conviction by a Magistrate be liable to serve the unexpired portion of his
original sentence and shall also be punishable with imprisonment for a further
term which may extend to two years or with ne not exceeding rupees two
hundred, or with both.
142
Power of Government to remit sentence

(1) The State Government may remit the whole or a part of the sentence of a
person sentenced to imprisonment for an offence under any Act, on such
person entering into a bond, with one or more sureties, in such amount and
for such period as the State Government may, direct, to be of good behaviour
and to observe such conditions as to residence or otherwise as the State
Government may impose.
(2) The provisions of sections 123, 124, 446, 447, 448 and 449 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall, apply in the case of sureties offered and
bonds given under this section as if they had been offered and given under
Chapter VIII of the said Code:
Provided that if any person, required under section 126-A or 514-A of the said
Code to furnish fresh security, fails to furnish the same, the State Government may
cancel the order passed under sub-section (1) and order that such person shall
serve the whole or so much of his unexpired sentence as the State Government
may direct.
(3) If any person released under sub-section (1) fails to observe the conditions
of his bond, the State Government may direct that he be re-arrested and sent
to prison to serve the whole or such part of his unexpired sentence as it may
direct, in addition to any proceeding that may be taken against him or his
surety or sureties in respect of such bond under the said Code.
Ineligibility for release

The following classes of prisoners shall not be released under the Act:
(a) Those convicted of offences under the following chapters or sections of the
Indian Penal Code:
“Chapters V-A, VI and VII Sections, 216-A, 224 and 225 (if it is a case of escape
from a jail), 231, 232, 303, 311, 328, 364, 376, 382, 386 to 389, 392 to 402, 413,
459, 460, 589-A and Section 511 read with any of the aforesaid section;
(b) Those convicted under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act or whose licence has been
previously revoked on account of the breach of the condition of the licence;
(c) Those whose application for release other than an application under Section
8 of the Act, were on a previous occasion rejected by the State Government.
(d) Prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year or less under
any section of the Indian Penal Code or any other Act may be released on
probation under Section 8 of the Act.
143
Eligibility for release

Save the prisoners specied in Rule 3, any other prisoner who has served
one-third of his sentence of imprisonment or a total period of ve years with
remissions, whichever is less, may be released by the State Government on a
licence.
Computation of sentence
For the purposes of these rules, the following principles shall be observed in
computing the period of sentence of imprisonment, namely:
(a) When a prisoner has been sentenced to several terms of imprisonment for
several offences and the sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to
run concurrently, then the longest single sentence which the prisoner is
undergoing shall be deemed to be the term of his imprisonment;
(b) When a prisoner has been sentenced to several terms of imprisonment for
several offences and the sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to
run consecutively, the total period which the prisoner has to undergo shall
be deemed to be the terms of his imprisonment;
(c) Remission already earned by the prisoner shall be counted as imprisonment
served by him; and
(d) Life sentence shall be reckoned as sentence of imprisonment for twenty years.
Explanation
The expression “sentence of imprisonment” in these rules shall include
imprisonment in default of the payment of ne and imprisonment for failure to
furnish security under Chapter VII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Procedure
(1) Any prisoner eligible for release under Section 2 of the Act may make an
application in Form A to the Superintendent. Such form shall be printed at
the cost of the Government and supplied free of charge to prisoners, to their
relatives and to persons offering themselves as their guardians.
(2) On receipt of the application, the Superintendent shall examine the
application to see if the prisoner and his proposed guardian have duly
lled in the columns of the application meant to be lled in by them. If the
application is in order, the Superintendent shall entertain it and cause it to be
entered in a register maintained in Form B. If the prisoner is ineligible under
Rule 3, he shall reject the application and inform the prisoner of his order. If
the prisoner is eligible for release under Rule 4, he shall ll in the columns in
the application meant to be lled in by him and forward the same, as soon
as may be, to the District Magistrate of the district in which the prisoner was
144
convicted. If the application is not in order, the Superintendent shall return it

to the prisoner for necessary correction or supplying the omissions.
(3) In cases where there is Probation Ofcer, the Superintendent of the Jail shall
forward the application to the Probation Ofcer, sending a copy thereof to
Superintendent of Police who shall send his report to the Probation Ofcer.
The Probation Ofcer shall make his independent inquiry and then submit
his report direct to the District Magistrate in the following form after
incorporating therein the report of the Superintendent of Police:
1. Name of convict
2. Convicted under section
3. Sentence
4. Relationship of guardian
5. Opinion about suitability of guardian (together with reasons in case of
non-suitability)
(a) Police
(b) Probation Ofcer
6. Recommendation regarding release (state reasons when release
opposed):
(a). Jail
(b) Police
(c) Probation Ofcer
7. District Magistrate’s order
Immediately on receipt of an application under sub-rule (2) and this rule,
the District Magistrate shall move the courts concerned for supplying him with
the certied copies of the relevant judgments in the case, free of cost, and shall,
if necessary, simultaneously consult, through the Superintendent of Police
concerned, the District Magistrate of the district in which the prisoner ordinarily
resides. On receipt of the copies of the judgments, and the report of the District
Magistrate of the district of residence of the prisoner, he shall attach the copies
of the judgments to the application, ll in the entries therein meant to be lled
in by him, and shall without delay forward the same to the Inspector-General of
Prisons.
On receipt of an intimation about the death of his guardian alongwith
the proposal for appointment of another guardian from a licensee, the District
Magistrate, of the district in which the licensee resides, shall refer the case to State
Government for appointment of a fresh guardian in place of the deceased one
alongwith his opinion about the suitability of the proposed guardian. In case the
licensee does not send his proposal for appointment of another guardian, the
District Magistrate shall require the licensee to do so before making a reference
145
to Government. If no guardian in place of the deceased one is proposed within

fteen days of the receipt of the District Magistrate’s order by the licensee, the
case would be reported by the District Magistrate to Government for orders.
(4) The District Magistrate shall maintain a register in Form C in which all
applications received from the Superintendent, under sub-rule (2) shall be
duly entered.
(5) The application received from the districts by the Inspector-General of
Prisons shall be considered by a Board consisting of the Home Secretary to
the Uttar Pradesh Government or any other ofcer empowered in this behalf
by the State Government, the Inspector-General of Prisons or the Deputy
Inspector-General of Prisons, as the case may be, and the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Hon’ble Minister of Jails, if there is one. If there is none for
a term of one year, provided that he shall cease to function as such in the
event of a Parliamentary Secretary being appointed in the meantime. The
Parliamentary Secretary or, in his absence, the Home Secretary or the ofcer
empowered by the State Government as above shall be the Chairman of the
Board. Meetings of the Board shall be held at least once every month to make
necessary recommendations.
(6) The State Government shall on the receipt of recommendations of the Board,
pass such orders as it may deem proper.
(7) The State Government shall on the receipt of the report of the District
Magistrate regarding appointment of a fresh guardian of a licensee in place
of the deceased one, pass such orders as it may deemed proper.
Licence
A prisoner whose release on licence is sanctioned by the State Government
shall be granted a license in Form D. Three copies of such a licence shall be
prepared for each prisoner. One shall be retained by the Government, another
shall be sent to the Superintendent for delivery to the guardian of the prisoner
and the third shall be forwarded to the District Magistrate for information.
Information to the prisoner and guardian

As soon as the Superintendent receives the orders of the Government, he
shall communicate the same to the prisoner and the District Magistrate concerned
and in the case of an order of release shall, through the District Magistrate, inform
the guardian also of the order and call upon him to present himself, to take charge
of the prisoner. On the guardian presenting himself, the Superintendent shall
deliver to him the copy of the licence received from the State Government, hand
over to him the prisoner and take his signature in the register (Form B) in token of
his having taken charge of the prisoner.
146
Guardian’s duty
(a) It shall be the duty of the guardian to see that the conditions of the licence
are fullled. He shall look after the conduct and welfare of the licensee and
generally act in loco parentis. If the licensee’s conduct is found to be bad, it
shall be the duty of guardian to report the fact to the District Magistrate.
(b) In dealing with the licensee the guardian, when he is a Probation Ofcer
appointed by the Uttar Pradesh Discharge Prisoners’ Aid Society, will be
governed by any rules framed by the Society for the guidance of Probation
Ofcers, with the approval of the State Government.
Revocation
(1) The District Magistrate, on receiving information from the guardian or any
other source, of the breach by the licensee of the conditions of the licence,
shall cause a notice to be served on the licensee to show cause why his licence
should not be revoked. If the licensee presents himself in response to the
notice, then after hearing him personally and, if he does not present himself,
then, without hearing him, the District Magistrate shall consider whether or
not to recommend to the State Government for the revocation of the prisoner’s
licence and shall act accordingly. While making his recommendations to
Government for revocation of the licence, the District Magistrate shall state
the condition or conditions which in his opinion, have been breached by the
licensee and how they have been breached.
(2) In case the District Magistrate decides to recommend the revocation of the
licence, he may, at the same time if he considers that the licensee is unt to be
allowed to remain at large under the licence, order his arrest and detention
in the prison pending the receipt of the orders of the State Government.
(3) The State Government shall on receipt of the District Magistrate’s
recommendation pass such orders as it may deem proper.
(4) An order of revocation of licence shall be in Form E and shall be served upon
the licensee if detained in prison by the Superintendent of the Prison, and, if
not detained in prison, by the ofcer incharge of police station.
(5) The order of revocation shall be noted on the licence and in the register
maintained by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent.
(6) If a prisoner released on licence under the Act escapes from the supervision
or authority of a guardian or fails to return to prison on revocation of his
licence, the guardian shall immediately inform the District Magistrate and
the Superintendent and report to the nearest police station, and action shall
be taken against the prisoner as in a cognizable case.
147
Warrant of commitment
On the release of a prisoner under the Act, the Superintendent shall retain
the warrant through which the prisoner was sent to prison by the Court which
sentenced him until the period of his sentence with remissions, if any, earned by
him during the period of his connement in jail, has expired. The period during
which a prisoner is absent from prison under the provisions of this Act on a licence
which is in force shall be reckoned as part of the period of imprisonment to which
he was sentenced for the purpose of computing the period of his sentence. When
the convict released on licence has nished the sentence, the Jail Superintendent
shall return the warrants to the court which issued them.
Final release
On the expiry of the period of licence otherwise than by revocation the
guardian shall forthwith inform the licensee that he is absolved from the
observance of all conditions of the licence and the lincesee shall make a note to
that effect on the licence and shall return it to the Superintendent.
Police registered convicts

When a prisoner released on licence under the Act happens to be a
police registered convict, the Superintendent of the Prison shall inform the
Superintendent of Police of the district of which such convict is a resident of his
release on licence, together with the name and address of the guardian and shall
at the same time, inform him of the date on which the nal release of the licence
is likely to take place. On the nal release of the prisoner the Police register slip
shall be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police.
Guardian
(1) In each case the District Magistrate shall determine whether or not the
proposed guardian is t to act as such having regard to his status, antecedent
and the degree of control that he may exercise on the prisoner, and inform
the State Government.
(2) Parents or relatives of a prisoner may be appointed guardian if the District
Magistrate is satised that they are t to act as such guardians.
(3) An ofcer of a prison shall in no case be eligible to act as guardian unless the
Inspector-General of Prisons sanctions it.
Remission of sentence
(1) An application for remission of sentence under Section 8 of the act shall be
made by the prisoner or by the person offering himself as his surety to the
District Magistrate of the district in which he was convict or where he was
148
convicted in more than one district then to the District Magistrate of any such
district.
(2) The District Magistrate shall on a consideration of the antecedents of the
prisoner, his conduct in jail and his environments and after consulting the
Probation Ofcer where one is appointed and such other authorities as he
may think proper, within one month of the receipt of the application forward
it to the State Government stating his opinion whether the prisoner is likely
to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life if released from prison.
(3) The State Government may, on receipt of such application, release the prisoner
on his entering into a bond with one or more sureties for such amount and for
such period as the State Government may direct, to be of good behaviour and
to observe such conditions as the State Government may impose.
(4) If any prisoner released under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act fails
to observe the conditions of the bond, the District Magistrate or the Sub-
divisional Magistrate, if authorised by the District Magistrate, may take
proceedings under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and
report to the State Government for the cancellation of the order remitting the
sentence passed under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act and the State
Government may pass such orders in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Section
8 as may deem t.
149
FORM A
[See Rule 6, Sub-rule (1)]
(To be supplied to a prisoner, his relative and his guardian free of charge)
Application by a prisoner to the Superintendent of Prison for release under
Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners’ Release on Probation Act, 1938 (To be
lled in by the prisoner and his guardian)
(1) Name of prisoner .......................................................................................................

(2) Father’s name .............................................................................................................
(3) Caste ............................................................................................................................
(4) Residence ....................................................................................................................
(5) Name of the proposed guardian .............................................................................
(6) Guardian’s father’s name .........................................................................................
(7) Guardian’s caste ........................................................................................................
(8) Guardian’s age ...........................................................................................................
(9) Guardian’s Address ..................................................................................................
(10) Guardian’s occupation .............................................................................................
(11) Is the guardian literate? ............................................................................................
Declaration by the Prisoner

I hereby declare that I desire to be released on licence under the Uttar
Pradesh Prisoners’ Release on Probation Act, 1938, and shall faithfully comply
with the conditions of the licence.
Signature of the prisoner ..............
Thumb-impression
Date .....................
150
Declaration by the Guardian
Society
*I (on behalf of ................................................................agree
Institution
to undertake supervision of ....... prisoner mentioned above and shall comply
with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners’ Release on Probation Act,
1938, rules framed thereunder and conditions of licence.
Signature
..................... of the guardian ..............
Thumb-impression
Date .....................
*Note—The words in brackets shall be scored out if the proposed guardian is
not a society or an institution.
(To be lled by the Superintendent of Jail)

(1) Prisoner’s number .....................................................................................................
(2) Prisoner’s age .............................................................................................................
(3) Date of sentence .........................................................................................................
(4) Period of sentence ......................................................................................................
(5) Sentencing ofcer and case number .......................................................................
(6) Section .........................................................................................................................
(7) If the applicant is ineligible for release under Rule 3, the Superintendent shall
in his own hand record herewith order rejecting this application with reasons
and shall not ll in the subsequent columns ..........................................................
(8) Physical and mental conditions of the prisoner ....................................................
(9) Conduct in jail ............................................................................................................
(10) The work allotted to the prisoner in Jail .................................................................
(11) Prison offences committed by the prisoner and punishments awarded to him
......................................................................................................................................
(12) Training received in any particular work in prison or any special prociency
acquired ......................................................................................................................
(13) Effect of imprisonment undergone .........................................................................
151
(14) Period spent in jail up to the date of application..................................................

(15) Remission earned ....................................................................................................
(16) Prisoner’s date of release after allowing remission under the rules
calculated at the rate at which he is earning the remission on the date of
application..................................................................................................................
(17) It is advisible to release the prisoner on licence? ..................................................
(18) Previous reference, if any, made to Government either by the Superintendents
of the Jail himself or through the District Magistrate on the subject of release
of the prisoner ............................................................................................................
Entries checked with warrants

Date Jailer Superintendent of Jail
(To be lled in by the District Magistrate)
(1) Is the proposed guardian t to act as such? ..............................
(2) Having regard to the prisoner’s antecedents and his conduct in prison, is he
likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life if released on licence?
Date .......................... District Magistrate

1
[Recommendation of the Board
(1) Recommendation of the Board
(2) Recommended for release on licence after ................... months, in default of
payment of ne or sooner if ne or portion of ne is paid.
(3) Recommended for release on licence provided a suitable guardian is available.
(4) Recommended for release on licence after .......................... months if prisoner’s
conduct is satisfactory.
(5) Postponed till .............................. for further observing the prisoner’s conduct.
(6) Postponed till a suitable guardian is forthcoming ................................................
(7) Rejected (State reasons briey) ................................................................................
(8) Name of guardian to be recognised ........................................................................
Member Member Chairman

Order of Government
Date..............
Secretary to Govt.
Date ............. ”]
152
FORM B
[See Rule 6 (2)]
Jail register of application for release under the Uttar Pradesh Prisoner’s Release on Probation Act, 1938
Serial Date Name of Pris- Wheth- Whether Date Date of Order of Name Date Date of Date, if Signa- Date Re-
Num- of Ap- Prisoner oner’s er appli- returned of the despatch the State of giving re-ad- any, of ture of marks
ber plica- number cation by the Su- ex- of the Govern- guard- the mission the re- of the nal
tion rejected perinten- piry of applica- ment ian licence of the vocation guard- re-
by the dent to the licence tion and de- prisoner of the ian in lease
Super- prisoner if to the livery into the licence token from
inten- grant- District of the Jail of the the
dent ed Magis- pris- receipt jail
trate oner of the
to the licence
guard- and
ian delivery
to him
153
of the
prisoner
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1. Substituted by Noti cation No. 3652-P/XXII-1212(93) 83-UPA-7 38-Rule 38 AM (3)-82, dated June 29, 1983, published in U.P. Gazette, dated 30.6.83.
FORM C
[See Rule 6 (4)]
Register of applications for release under the Uttar Pradesh Prisoner’s Release
on Probation Act to be maintained in the ofce of the District Magistrate
Serial Date of Name Name Whether Date of Orders Name Date, Whe- Re-
Num- receipt of of recom- dis- of the of if ther marks
ber of Pris- con- mended patch State guard- any, action
applicat- oner vict- to of Gov- ian of re- taken
ion ing Govern- appli- ern- voca- under
from the court ment for cation ment tion section
Superin- release to the of 7 of the
tendent Inspec- li- Act
tor cence
General
of pris-
ons
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
FORM D
(See Rule 7)
Licence of conditional release under Section 2 of the Prisoners’ Release on
Probation Act, 1938
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2 of the Prisoner’s Release on
Probation Act, 1938, the State Government is pleased, subject to the observance of
the conditions hereinafter set forth to grant and direct the release of ...................,
son of .................. caste.......... aged..............., resident of ..................., police station
................ district ............................ convict number .................. at present conned
in the ......................... jail and place him under the supervision and authority of
...................., son of ..............., caste ........................... resident of ....................., police
station ...................... district.
society
or ........................... hereby appointed as the guardian of the said prisoners.
Institution
The licence shall expire on the ................... day of .............20, unless previously
revoked.
154
Conditions to be observed by the Licensee

(1) The licensee shall remain under the supervision and authority of the
abovementioned guardian during the period of the licence. He shall obey all
the instructions of the guardian issued to him either verbally or in writing
regarding his residence, employment or conduct.
(2) He shall not proceed beyond the limits of the places within which he may be
restricted by his guardian without his permission and shall proceed to any
place directed by the guardian and by the route prescribed by the guardian.
(3) He shall report himself at such times and places and to such persons as the
guardian may from time to time direct.
(4) He shall himself with due industry and to the satisfaction of the guardian do
the work upon which the said guardian may direct him to employ himself.
(5) He shall not commit any criminal offence punishable by any law for the time
being in India or any part thereof.
(6) He shall not in any way associate with persons known to be of bad character
or lead dissolute or evil life.
(7) If in the opinion of the State Government he is found to have committed a
breach of the abovementioned conditions the State Government may, after
the person concerned has been given an opportunity to represent his case
before the District Magistrate of the district in which he is residing at the
time, revoke a licence and direct his recommitment to prison to serve the rest
of the sentence, subject to the provisions of Section 4 of the Prisoners’ Release
on Probation Act, 1938.
(8) On revocation of this licence, the return to the prison named in the order of
revocation on or before the date specied therein.
(9) In the event of the death of his guardian the licensee shall at once report this
fact to the District Magistrate of the district in which he resides and shall,
if possible, propose some other suitable guardian in place of the deceased,
giving full particulars of the proposed guardian.
Guardian’s Duty
It shall be the duty of the guardian to see that the conditions of the licence are
fullled. He shall look after the conduct and welfare of his licensee and generally
act in loco parentis. If the licensee’s conduct be bad, it shall be the duty of the
guardian to report the fact to the District Magistrate.
If a prisoner released on licence under the Act escapes from the supervision
or authority of a guardian or fails to return to prison on revocation of the
licence, the guardian shall immediately inform the District Magistrate and the
Superintendent and report to the nearest police station, and action shall be taken
against the prisoner as in a cognizable case.
155
On the expiry of the period of licence otherwise than by revocation, the

guardian shall forthwith inform the licensee that he is absolved from the
observance of all conditions of the licence, shall make a note to that effect on the
licence and shall return it to the Superintendent.
FORM E
[See Rule 10(40)]
Order of revocation of licence under Section 6 of the Prisoners’ Release on
Probation Act, 1938
Whereas ........... a licensee released under Section 2 of the U.P. Prisoners’
Release on Probation Act, 1938 has committed a breach of condition No. ...........
of his licence, date .............. No. ............ Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 6 of the U.P. Prisoners’ Release on Probation Act, 1938, the
State Government hereby revokes with effect from ............. the licence under Section
2 of the said Act granted on ........................ to ...................... son of ............................
.... resident of .............................. police station.................. district of ..........................
convict no. ................... prison, under the guardianship of ............................. son of
................... resident of ................... son of .................... resident of ..................... police
station ....................... district ...............................and directs that he be readmitted
into the prison to serve the rest of his sentence subject to the provisions of Section
4 of the said Act.
(The said convict is directed to report himself to the Superintendent of the
.......................... prison at ................... on or before the ......................).
Premature Release of Sick Convicts

(a) The Superintendent may recommend for release a convict suffering from a
disease which is likely to prove fatal if the convict remains in prison, but from
which there is a reasonable chance of recovery if he is released, provided
that-
(i) the disease has not been produced or aggravated by any wilful act on the
part of the convict;
(ii) The Medical Ofcer and Civil Surgeon both recommend the release and
certify that the disease is of the nature described;
(iii) the District Magistrate of the district of conviction has no objection to the
release of the convict; and
(iv) the convict is willing to be released and has relatives or friends to look
after him if released.
(b) After forwarding the case to the District Magistrate of the district of conviction
through the Superintendent of Police and obtaining from him a report that he
156
has no objection to the release of the convict, the Superintendent shall submit
the case to the State Government in the prescribed form in duplicate through
the Director General of Prisons. If the convict is undergoing imprisonment
in default of furnishing security under section 122 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, he shall, instead of forwarding the case to the State
Government, refer it, through the Superintendent of Police, to the District
Magistrate of the district of conviction under section 123 of the said Code.
The provisions of para. 207-A shall also be observed. In the case of convicts
convicted in other States, the provisions of para. 206 shall also be observed.
Release of convicts on grounds of old age, inrmity or illness-
(a) The Superintendent shall, on the 1st of May every year, submit to the Director
General a list containing the name of every convict who owing to old age,
inrmity or illness is permanently incapacitated from the commission of
further crime of the nature of that for which he has been convicted.
(b) In cases which appear to him suitable for reference to Government the
Inspector General shall, after forwarding the cases to the District Magistrates
of the district of conviction through the Superintendents of Police and
obtaining their views whether there is any objection to the conditional or
unconditional release of the convicts, report the names of such convicts to the
State Government with his recommendation whether the convicts should be
released.
Recommendation for release of convicts suffering from fatal illness-
(a) The Superintendent may recommend for release a convict who is suffering from
a fatal illness or inrmity, whatever its nature, and is, as far as can be foreseen,
within three months of death, provided the convict is willing to be released and
has friends or relations who are willing to take him and look after him and he is
not in a condition that makes it impossible for him to be taken to his home.
(b) The Medical Ofcer of the jail shall be required to certify on the prescribed
form that the convict is approaching death and is likely to die within not
more than three months and that he is t to be taken to his home. The opinion
of the Medical Ofcer shall, in all such cases, be supported by the second
medical opinion of the Civil Surgeon or where the Medical Ofcer is the Civil
Surgeon himself, by the second medical opinion of the ofcer who is most
senior among the other civil medical ofcers in the district.
(c) The Superintendent shall, after referring the case to the District Magistrate of
the district of residence through the Superintendent of Police and obtaining
a report whether there is any one capable of looking after the convict, if
released, submit the case to State Government through the Inspector General.
In the case of convicts convicted in other States, the provisions of para. 206
shall also be observed.
157
(d) In case in which all requisite conditions are fullled and in which delay is
likely to imperil the convict’s life, the Superintendent may release the convict
in anticipation of the orders of the State Government.
(e) If the convict is undergoing imprisonment in default of furnishing security
under section 123 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the case shall,
instead of being submitted to Government, be referred to the District
Magistrate of the district of conviction through the Superintendent of Police
under section 124 of the Code.
(f) The names of prisoners released under this paragraph shall be communicated
to the District Magistrate of the district where the convicts, reside and the
District Magistrate shall report to the Inspector General on the expiry of four
months from the date of release of each prisoner whether the man is living
or dead. In case he is alive the report shall indicate in a general way the
condition of the man’s health.
The number of convicts released under these orders shall be shown in the
Annual Report along with the death rates in jail.
The provisions of paragraph 207-A shall be observed.
(a) Nomination rolls of convicts under fourteen-year rule

The Superintendent shall submit, through the Superintendent of Police and
the District Magistrate of the district of conviction, for the consideration and
the others of the State Government under section 432 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the nominal roll in duplicate of every life-convict and of every
convict sentenced to more than fourteen years’ imprisonment or transportation
or to transportation and imprisonment for terms exceeding fourteen years in
the aggregate, as soon as the term of imprisonment undergone by the convict
together with any remissions earned by him under the rules amounts to fourteen
years. Before forwarding the roll to the Government the District Magistrate shall,
after consulting through the Superintendent of Police or the District Magistrate
of the district of residence, if such district of residence is other than the district of
conviction, record on the roll-
(1) his opinion whether there is any objection to the immediate release of the
convict;
(2) if there is any objection to the immediate release of the convict, his suggestion
as to the total period of imprisonment inclusive of remissions which the
convict should serve; and
(3) a brief account of the circumstances of the crime or crimes for which the
convict was convicted.
Procedure when Government has postponed consideration of the case
If on rst submission of a case under the fourteen-year rule the State
158
Government pass orders for the release of a convict after a certain stated period,
the Superintendent shall not refer the case to the District Magistrate again when
resubmitting it to Government for the issue of necessary orders, but if the State
Government direct that the case shall be reconsidered after a certain specied
period the roll shall, at the proper time be resubmitted through the Superintendent
of Police and the District Magistrate who shall record a fresh opinion as in
paragraph 198(a).
In the case of convicts convicted in other States, the provisions of paragraph
206 shall also be observed.
The District Magistrate, while forwarding the nominal rolls of prisoners to
Government either under paragraph 198 or 200 of the Jail Manual, will at the
same time intimate the Superintendent of the Jail concerned of his having home
so to enable the latter to check any delay or loss in transmission of the rolls or
the orders of Government thereon. The Superintendent shall bring to the notice
of Government any case in which orders have not been received by him after
two months from the date the roll was forwarded to Government by the District
Magistrate.
Life convicts
On receipt of the case of a life convict on the recommendation of the revising
board (paragraph 247) or under the fourteen-year rule (paragraph 198 or under
paragraph 190) the State Government may pass one of the following orders:
(1) that the convict shall be released immediately conditionally or unconditionally;
(2) that the convict shall be released conditionally or unconditionally after
serving a stated period of sentence inclusive of remissions; or
(3) that the case shall be reconsidered after a stated period or after the convict
has served a specied period of sentence inclusive of remissions.
In the second case when the release is to be unconditional the convict shall be
released without further reference to the State Government when he has served
the period specied in the order provided his conduct continues to be satisfactory.
If the order is that the release shall be conditional the Superintendent shall
resubmit the case to Government for orders at least two months before the expiry
of the specied period of sentence. In such case and also when an order has been
passed by the Government as at (3) above, the resubmission of the case should be
initiated by the Jail at least two months before the date xed for its resubmission
in order to avoid any possible delay in the receipt of the case by Government.
Where the sentences are to run consecutively and their aggregate is more than
twenty years, the State Government may review the case prior to the prisoner’s
completing twenty years including remissions. If the State Government considers
that it is a t case for release they may remit the unexpired sentence. If the
appropriate Government for the purpose of remission is the Central Government,
159
the State Government may make suitable recommendation to them.

Postponement of cases under the fourteen-year rule till their
consideration by the revising board
When the case of any convict is received under the fourteen-year rule by
the State Government before it has been considered by the revising board, the
State Government may defer the determination of the period to be served till
the case has been so considered by the revising board and its recommendation
considered by the Government. To ensure proper working of this rule, the
Superintendent shall make a note of the fact on the convict’s roll and also bring
it to the notice of the State Government, when submitting the revising board’s
recommendation, that the determination of the period to be served by the convict
had been deferred by the Government at the same time quoting the number and
date of the Government order.
Procedure in case of conditional release
When a convict, resident in Uttar Pradesh, has been ordered to be released
conditionally by the State Government, the Superintendent of the Jail shall at least
two days before the date of release inform the Superintendent of Police of the
district, in which he is conned (which will also be his district of residence, vide
paragraph 123), of the date of release and shall request him to depute a guard as
provided in rule 165 of the Rules for Guards and Escorts. The Superintendent of
the Jail shall deliver to the convict a translation in Urdu or Hindi of the order of
release in Form A given in Appendix B and shall ask him to sign the agreement
on the back of Form A. The Superintendent of the Jail shall then sign the certicate
that the agreement has been duly executed.
Convicts unwilling to abide by the conditions of release to serve full

sentence
A convict who is unwilling to abide by the prescribed conditions of release
shall not be released till the expiry of his sentence. The most ordinary case of this
sort would be that of a convict belonging to a wandering tribe members of which
are frequently unwilling to settle down in a place where police surveillance can
be exercised over them.
Procedure of conditional release of a convict
On the day of release the Superintendent of the jail shall, in cases where
conditional release has been ordered, make over the convict to the guard deputed
for the purpose by the Superintendent of Police together with his descriptive
roll and a copy of the order of release with the date of expiry of the sentence
duly endorsed there. The original order of release shall be retained by the
Superintendent of the Jail. The guard shall take the convict to the Superintendent
160
of Police who shall thereon proceed in accordance with paragraph 276, Police
Regulations.
A prisoner, whose conditional release has been ordered, should be released,
as soon as possible, but the Superintendent of the Jail shall not select, for the date
of release, a court holiday.
The date of the expiry of sentence is the date on which the sentence, reckoned
in the case of like convicts as twenty years, vide paragraph 170(e), would expire,
if no remissions were allowed, and shall, unless the order of conditional release
otherwise directs, be the date on which the conditions of release shall cease to be
imposed.
Except in the case of recommendations under paragraphs 195, 196 and 197 of
this Manual, rolls of convicts convicted in other States shall be forwarded to the
State Government at least four months in advance.
Release of Prisoners on Special Occasions
Release of prisoners on Independence Day (National Festival)
Under the Government Order 1951/22-2-200-18 (75)/2000 dated 11 August,
2000 the Governor of Uttar Pradesh gave order to release the convicts of different
jails of Uttar Pradesh and whose behaviour is good during imprisonment. The
Government of Uttar Pradesh agreed to release the convicts prematurely who fall
under the following categories:
1. Those convicts who have completed their 20 years of imprisonment with
remission on 15 August, 2000.
2. The male convicts of 60 years or more punished with the life imprisonment
and who have completed 3 years of imprisonment without remission.
3. The women convicts of 50 years or more punished with the life imprisonment
4. The male convicts of 60 years or more who have completed their 1/3 period
of imprisonment without remission or 2 years' imprisonment whatsoever is
less and punished for a limited period.
5. The women convicts of 50 years or more who have completed their 1/3 period
6. Those convicts who are completely blind and convicts who are handicapped
without a leg or who are unable to work and completed their two years of
imprisonment without remission.
The Governor has also given the special remission of 15 days for those
punished for 1 year. One month for those punished for 1 to 3 years and 2 months
for those punished for more than 3 years.
161
These convicts will not be considered for release:

1. Those who are outside the Jail on Bail.
2. The Foreigner Prisoners.
3. The convicts punished by the Military Courts.
4. Undertrail prisoners.
5. The prisoners imprisoned under Foreigner’s or Passport Act.
6. The prisoners imprisoned under section-3 to 10 of Ofcial Secrets Act, 1967.
7. The prisoners punished under section 2 & 3 of Criminal Law Amendment
Act and section 121-131 of Indian Penal Code.
8. The Prisoners punished under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or
punished under section 167, 170, 171, 181, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 210,
216A, 216B, and 219.
9. The prisoners punished under Suppression of Immoral Trafc of Women
Act, 1956.
Premature Release of Prisoners on Republic Day (National Festival)
On the event of Republic Day, 2000 one Government Order No. 9/22-2-2000-
1864/99 has been passed on 11 January, 2000 regarding the premature release of
prisoners of Uttar Pradesh and amended order passed on 25th January, 2000 with
some changes in the conditions of premature release and it has been cancelled
on 14 March, 2002 after the High Court Decision to again arrest all the released
prisoners.
The conditions laid down by the Government of Uttar Pradesh are following:
1. All convicts who have completed their 25 years of imprisonment till 26th
January, 2006.
2. Convicts of 65 years or more who have been given life imprisonment and
completed their period of sentence of 3 years without remission.
3. Women convicts of 60 years or more who have been given life imprisonment
and completed their period of sentence of 3 years without remission.
of imprisonment without remission or 2 year's imprisonment whatsoever is
The Governor has also given the special remission of 15 days for those
punished for 1 year. One month for those punished for 1 to 3 years and 2 months
for those punished for more than 3 years.
162
These convicts will not be considered for release:

1. Those who are outside the Jail on Bail
2. The Foreigner Prisoners
3. The convicts punished by the Military Courts
4. Undertrail prisoners
5. The prisoners imprisoned under Foreigner’s or Passport Act
6. The prisoners imprisoned under section-3 to 10 of Ofcial Secrets Act 1967.
7. The prisoners punished under section 2 & 3 of Criminal Law Amendment
Act and section 121-131 of Indian Penal Code.
8. The Prisoners punished under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or
punished under section 167, 170, 171, 181, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 210,
216A, 216B, and 219.
9. The Prisoners punished under Suppression of Immoral Trafc of Women
Act, 1956.
10. The convicts of Rape cases.
By the Government Order No. 231/22-2/2000-18(64)/99 dated 25th January,
2000 the conditions of premature release of prisoners were relaxed. The new
conditions laid down were:
1. Those convicts who have completed their 20 years of imprisonment with
remission on 26 January, 2000.
2. The male convicts of 60 years or more punished with the life imprisonment
3. The women convicts of 50 years or more punished with the life imprisonment
The restriction of premature release of the offenders charged with rape cases
waived.
A total 928 prisoners were released from 47 different jails of Uttar Pradesh on
th
26 January, 2000. But due to the High Court decision on Criminal Writ Petition
No. 5039/2000 Mirza Mohammad versus State of U.P. passed the judgment of re-
arrest of the prematurely released prisoners.
163
Chapter – 9
Conclusions and Suggestions

Introduction
In this nal chapter we are reporting the conclusions of the study and
thereupon the suggestions that we feel deserve attention and action for the
purposes of streamlining the system of premature release of prisoners. The
chapter is divided in two parts. Part-I reports the conclusions and Part-II, the
suggestions that we wish to make.
Part-I: CONCLUSIONS
With regard to reporting of the conclusions, the scheme followed is as under:
 Firstly, we report the conclusions arrived at on the basis of the information
supplied to us in response to our questionnaire sent to Director Generals/
Inspector Generals of Prisons in different States.
 Secondly, we report the conclusions arrived at on the basis of the information
that we gathered from the State of U.P., wherein the detailed study of the
system had been made.
 Thirdly, we report the conclusions arrived at on the basis of the information
supplied to us in response to our questionnaire sent to Superintendents of
the District and Central Jails in the State of U.P.
 Fourthly, we report the conclusions arrived at on the basis of the information
gathered by us through our interviews with 100 selected prisoners.
Fifthly and nally we present the broad conclusions which merit attention and
action for streamlining the system.
Accordingly, the conclusions are reported on the basis of the aforesaid ve
different types of information and responses.
I. Conclusions on the Basis of the Information Received from the Director
Generals/Inspector Generals of Prisons in States and Union Territories
1. Premature releases are being made under 4 broad categories, namely
under section 433-A of Cr. P.C., under the Prisoners Release on Probation
acts in certain States, on Mercy basis, on Special occasions and on Other
considerations. The number of releases vary from State to State, but the
pattern that appears more predominant pertains to releases under Section
433-A, followed by releases made on special occasions by Special executive
orders. Releases on mercy basis are few in number. Same is the case with
releases on probation.
164
2. The nature of disposal of cases shows that out of the total number of cases
referred to for premature releases to the appropriate authority, large number
of them get rejected or recommended for reconsideration after some time.
3. As the conditions of eligibility/ineligibility for premature release vary from
State to State, there is no general pattern to indicate the nature of offences
committed by the prisoners recommended for the consideration of their
premature release. However, the offenders convicted of serious offences with
long-term sentences are the likely candidates for consideration of their cases.
4. Most of the prematurely released prisoners belonged to middle and upper
age groups and were predominantly males.
5. In terms of their educational background most of the releasees were illiterate/
semiliterate and educated upto middle/secondary levels.
6. Relevant provisions for premature release in different States show a great
deal of variation and there appears no uniformity.
7. In most States the release provisions are contained in their respective Jail
Manuals. The Guidelines of the National Human Rights Commission have
been adopted with certain modications only in few States. However,
the Union Territories in general had been quick in adopting the NHRC
Guidelines.
8. As per our information no State/UT has yet adopted the Guidelines of the
Model Prison Manual brought out in the year 2003 by the Bureau of Police
Research and Development (Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India).
9. Regarding the positive and negative aspects of premature release of prisoners,
the information that we had received indicates that the respondents have
viewed the system with positive opinions, such as: (a) premature release of
prisoners is an accepted mode of incentive to prisoners that contributes to
their reformation and rehabilitation; (b) it is one of the signicant measures of
reducing overcrowding in prisons and minimizing the cost of incarceration;
(c) it improves jail discipline by inducing prisoners to be disciplined and
well-behaved in the hope of getting released; and (d) it is a humanitarian
measure for old, sick and inrm prisoners. As regards the negative aspects,
either the respondents had made no comments, or had expressed the opinion
that haphazard and indiscriminate releases make the system suspect and let
the public lose their faith in it.
10. Opining about the need for streamlining the system, majority of the
respondents had supported the prevalent view that the system needs to be
streamlined and had made some very useful suggestions, some of which have
been reported in part-II of this chapter under the heading “Conclusions”.
165
II. Conclusions on the Basis of Information obtained from the Ofce of the
D.G. Prisons, U.P.
1. Premature releases in U.P. are made under Section 432 of Cr. P.C. 1973 on
the grounds of: (a) Sickness likely to prove fatal under Rule 195 of U.P. Jail
Manual; (b) old age, inrmity or illness permanently incapacitating from
further crime under Rule 196 of the U.P. Jail Manual; (c) remissions earned by
a convict under 14 year rule as per U.P. Jail Manual Rule 198; (d) probational
releases under section 8 of the U.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938;
(e) on the recommendations of the Revising Board under U.P. Jail Manual
Rules 233-250; and (f) on mercy petitions under Article 161 of the Constitution
of India.
2. During the last ve years (2000-2004), a total number of 262 prisoners have
been released, and an overwhelming majority of them (247) from the Central
prisons.
3. In addition, a total number of 1,099 releases had been made in the last ve
years (2000-2004) on the basis of Nominal Roll Form A (Prisoners Release
U.P. Probation Act, 1938); on 15th August and 26th, January (2000), and on
mercy basis. Of these 19 releases on Form A basis, 1,074 on the basis of two
executive orders allowing en masse releases of certain categories of prisoners
in the year 2000, and 6 on mercy basis. The en masse releases in the year
2000 had been challenged in the Allahabad High Court which quashed the
executive order and directed the Government to re-arrest the releasees and
put them back to prisons.
4. The small number of releases made tellingly shows that the system of
premature release is being used very very sparingly. The fact of the matter is
that large number of cases are routinely rejected on the adverse reports led
by the ofces of the Superintendents of Police and District Magistrates.
5. A large majority of the releases had been middle-aged and elderly persons in
the age groups of 41 to 50, 51 to 60 and 60 and above.
6. In regard to pattern of report led by different ofcials - from Jail, police,
district administration and Probation ofce - there emerged an interesting
pattern. The reports of the jail superintendents were dutifully positive,
certifying the good conduct of prisoners. The reports of District Probation
Ofcer were positive in large number of cases (about 2/3 of the total). The
reports of the District Superintendents of Police were negative in more than
90 percent cases. They had suspected trouble if the prisoner was to be released
prematurely. This reects the retributive mindset of the police personnel who
somehow believe that redemption of wrong-doers is not possible and longer
and longer incarcerations of criminals are necessary. The pattern of the
reports by the District Magistrates showed the similar pattern, not because of
any mindset or whatever, but because they, for administrative reasons, had
166
to usually endorse the reports of the Police Superintendents. So what matters

is that the reports of the Superintendents of Police and District Magistrates
indeed constitute and in fact furnish the basis for a positive or negative
recommendation. The Revising Board which takes the crucial decision is
usually governed by the reports of these two ofcials, who are responsible
for law and order maintenance at the district level. So given the disinclination
and non-liberal attitude of these ofcials, the system of premature release
moves very very cautiously, most haltingly and extremely miserly. In one
word, it does not move easily and remains quite indifferent to the reformative
approach of corrections. Therefore, the issue of streamlining the system of
premature release of prisoners quintessentially refers to making it more
liberal, somewhat exible, great deal simplied and largely free from
unnecessary delays, administrative bottlenecks, allegations of corruptions
and favouritism.
III. Conclusions on the Basis of Responses from the Superintendents of Jails
in U.P.
1. From the responses of the Prison Superintendents regarding the number
of releases made from their jails during ve years, it became clear that the
benet is grudgingly granted. This makes clear that the system is so designed
and made operative that it appears more inclined to reject rather than accept
such releases for number reasons—good, bad and indifferent.
2. Regarding the reasons behind the pendency of cases, majority of the
respondents (25 out of 36) opined that the relevant reports required for taking
decision are usually (exceptional cases notwithstanding) delayed at all the
three levels (at the levels of the District Magistrate, at Senior Superintendent
of Police level and at the level of the Probation Ofcer). As there is no xed
time-limit for the submission of the report at these three levels, at each level,
there is neither any priority nor any visible interest. Their indifference or
apathy makes the system extremely slow moving, causing delay in the timely
disposal of cases. The other important reason is the delay in obtaining the
copies of the judgment of the Sessions Court/High Court which is generally
not sent to the concerned jail superintendent along with the warrant of
admission. The yet another important reason is the non-availability or
much delayed availability of classication memo along with the warrant.
In a signicant number of cases, said the respondents, the cases remained
pending wherein the appropriate guardian for the concerned prisoners were
not available. The pendency time at the headquarter level is also pretty long
due to number of administrative/bureaucratic reasons, including inertia,
indifference, non-urgency and least interest to let the decision-making process
move fast. Interestingly we have been informally told that in certain cases of
prisoners with right kind of political or bureaucratic clout or connections, the
entire machinery works too fast. The cases of all such prisoners are decided
167
with amazing speed in whose favour there is pressure on system operators.

However, the poor, the politically unconnected and those without requisite
resources are the unlucky ones and have to wait for long. In view of the
manifest malaises of our criminal justice system, this is least surprising. The
system works at the disadvantage of the deprived and the dispossessed.
3. Regarding the things that warrant consideration or indeed matter in
deciding the cases of premature release, the respondents opined that the
following things are important: (a) adverse or favourable report of the
District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police and Probation Ofcer;
(b) Evaluation/assessment/conjecture of the threat to local security by the
police; (c) past criminal history/record of the prisoner and the reaction of
the local people including the reaction of the victims/and their family
members; (d) nature of offence, sentence undergone, age, health and family
background of the prisoner; (e) effect of release on society; and (f) possibility
of recommission of crime (recidivism). Surprisingly enough the jail report of
the prisoner’s good conduct does not matter as much as the assessment of the
local police, which is usually endorsed rst by the Senior Superintendent of
Police and later dittoed by the District Magistrate. So what matters most is
the assessment of the police at the local thana level. How authentic/reliable
is this assessment is an open question which has not yet been investigated or
evaluated, and hence there are hosts of speculations suggesting that police
does not do a fair job and their reports are tainted by several extraneous
considerations, including corruption or local political pressures. The system
can not be streamlined unless the police assessment is made more objective,
more transparent and more dependable.
4. Regarding the time taken in deciding the cases, the respondents pointed out
that most cases of premature release take 6 months to 9 months or even a
year or more. Most respondents opined that the process of premature release
is such that it gets stuck-up almost at every level and more particularly at
the level of the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police.
In order to streamline the system the delay at these two levels needs to be
shortened, if not altogether removed and there has to be xed time-limit
for the submission of the reports from the ofce of the District Magistrate
and the Senior Superintendent of Police.
5. The problems pertaining to premature release of prisoners that arise at
the jail level are not less demanding and deserve serious consideration if
the system is to be streamlined at all levels. As the respondents were Jail
Superintendents, it is not surprising to learn that they laid their problems
at the doors of the court and the family members of the prisoners, rather
than the prison ofcials, at whose level the system receives indifferent
treatment. However, about two-third respondents said that as the copies of
the Court judgements are not made available to them in time and involve
168
long delays and unnecessary correspondence, the action at their level gets
delayed. One-fourth of the respondents did admit that there is a marked
disinterest/indifference in taking prompt action on the nominal roll form A,
mercy applications and in processing the cases of prisoners convicted under
433A and those inrm, aged or terminally ill. Speaking of another difculty,
they made mention of the non-availability of the court’s classication of
the prisoner as casual or habitual, which they said is required and which
should nd its mention in the warrant of prisoners’ admission in the jail.
The processing of the papers of premature release of those prisoners, said
one-third of the respondents, gets delayed for want of the availability of the
appropriate guardian due to the destitute status of certain prisoners, or due
to the indifference or inaction on the part of their family members. These
problems can be remedied if it is made mandatory that the copies of the
court judgments in all cases are to accompany the prisoners warrant of
admission to the prison.
6. Regarding the Systemic deciencies at the jail level majority of the
respondents (about two-third) did not nd any laxity in the operation of
the system of premature release of prisoners, thirteen respondents however,
made mention of the systemic deciencies that plague the system at the jail
level. Their responses revealed that district jail ofcials often show slackness
in submitting the records of all prisoners transferred to central jails. About
equal number of the respondents bemoaned that jail records of prisoners
are very poorly maintained due to non-availability of computers. Because of
this the retrieval of relevant district jail records takes much time and causes
delay. Some Respondents complained that their reports of the prisoners’ jail
conduct do not receive adequate appreciation and are given less weight as
compared to the reports of the DM and SSP which are generally adverse.
Another set of respondents opined that often-time certain jail ofcials are
not very clear about rules and procedures of premature release, as there
are frequent court directions and consequent policy changes. Since the
information on policy changes often reaches the jail very late and there is no
compendium on the latest policy changes, certain prison ofcials take their
own in initiating action. Further, correspondence in the cases of premature
release does not begin soon, the process gets delayed. Lastly, a few of the
respondents blamed the prison system for the lack of prompt action in calling
for the report of the DM and SSP. The task of mainstreaming the system at
the jail level requires removal of these deciencies.
7. In respect of the removal of the systemic deciencies at the jail level, the
respondents offered a suggestions galore which comprise of certain changes
that the jail ofcials wish to be effected in order to streamline the system.
The most important suggestion that merits attention is the xation of the
time limit for processing and nal decision-making. This, they said should be
169
strictly enforced to avoid delays. The other suggestion of equal importance is

the simplication and proper maintenance of ill-kept and ill-maintained jail
records through the introduction of computerization. In order to avoid delay
in the processing of cases of premature release, the respondents suggested
that High Court must be approached to issue direction to all the District
Judges to supply copies of their judgements, which must accompany the
warrant of admission along with the classication of convicted prisoner—
whether casual or habitual. The respondents further opined that the conduct
report of prisoners should form the basis of premature release and should
be given more weightage than the reports of the DM and SSP. Opining that
many of the jail ofcials dealing with cases of premature release are not fully
informed about policy changes in the system, they suggested compilation of
such orders in a separate booklet and the copies of this be made available to
each prison in the State. Making suggestion to effect internal changes, they
suggested that DIG Prisons, during their inspection should review the cases
due for premature release, and should give specic instruction to expedite
these cases. The other suggestions pertained to (a) timely correspondence/
action on submission of nominal role form A, mercy applications and inrmity
rolls; (b) amendment in the rules to do away the report of the DM because
it always endorses the report of the SSP, so the DM’s report is non-essential
and only causes delay; (c) the Revising Board should invite the concerned
jail superintendent to present his views when the case (cases) of his jail come
up for orders; and (d) measures should be taken to ensure that the reports of
DM, SSP and Probation Ofcers should be submitted sooner than later, better
would be to x the time limit for each of them.
8. Regarding adequate time in deciding the cases of premature release.
However, majority of the respondents (29 out of 36) opined that 3 to 6
months minimum time is required. In regard to maximum, again 29 out of
36 respondents opined that six months to nine months is the optimum time
limit which should be xed and adhered to.
9. Opining about the positive aspects of premature release, the respondents
emphasized, in order of priority, the following four main advantages
which underline the corrective/reformative aspects of premature release of
prisoners:
(1) It provides the opportunity for the reform and resettlement/rehabilitation
of the prisoners
(2) It is very much desired for aged/inrm and terminally sick prisoners on
humanitarian as well as on administrative considerations.
(3) It introduces positive changes in the personality, behaviour and outlook
of prisoners.
(4) It encourages prisoners to reform themselves.
170
The other positive aspects pointed out by the respondents referred to

premature release as: (a) being proper for those prisoners with such socio-
economic family background which is conducive to their satisfactory behaviour
consequent to having spent quite a good amount of time in prison; (b) it is a
safe bet for properly selected prisoners as providing them a new lease of life
and to undertake their family responsibility as well as to prevent their family
disorganization; and (c) it prevents part of the prison overcrowding and eases
the nancial as well as administrative burden on prison administration.
10. The positive aspects (as pointed out by the respondents in the preceding
table) have a much higher level of endorsement as compared to the negative
aspects pointed out by the respondents. Less than half of the respondents
(17 out of 36) seemed to believe that the liberal use of premature release
may result in the diminution in the fear of imprisonment in the minds of
the offenders, especially those who could manipulate/manage the system to
their own advantage. Out of these 17 respondents, 14 of them also opined that
premature release system reduces the effect of deterrence and makes mockery
of the philosophy of just deserts; 12 of them opined that there always remains
the possibility of recidivism; 10 of them said the victim feel cheated and may
develop a feeling of revenge; 7 of them opined that the parties in opposition
to the offender are exposed to threats and dangers and may live under fear;
and 6 of them said that prisoners with proper administrative and political
connections usually take advantage of the system. This response (the small
number of respondents notwithstanding) is commonly believed by a large
number of prisoners (whom the research staff informally interacted with).
This also feeds the rumour mill against the system of premature release,
and sounds credible to many who are in the know of the aberrations of the
criminal justice system as it actually operates.
11. In regard to streamlining the system, the respondents made a large number of
suggestions, which have been divided into four categories: (a) In Jail Manual;
(b) At Jail Level; (c) At the Headquarter Level; and (d) At the Government
Levels.
A. In Jail Manual
More than three-fourth of the respondents said that no change is required
in the prison manual. But they had hastened to add that the system can be made
more transparent, less-time consuming and better administered if it is streamlined
at the jail level, at the headquarter level and at the Government level. And for
that, most of the respondents had given their suggestions. What they have, in fact,
suggested is that the fault is not in the prison manual and the rules there under;
the system falters because of its inept handling at various levels.
171
(B) At Jail Level

The following four suggestions of the respondents deserve attention: (a)
xation of a reasonable time-limit as the Government may deem appropriate;
(b) computerization of all relevant prison records to prevent misuse, corruption,
inefciency and inaction at the jail level; (c) some mechanisms be devised so that
copies of the court judgments become available to the jail staff soon; and (d) the
jail level administration should ensure that the system of premature release is
operated in a manner which demonstrates transparency, fairness and impartiality
in the submission of papers/reports regarding the cases of prisoners due for
premature release.
(C) At Headquarter Level
The respondents made the following four suggestions: (i) strict compliance of
the rules and procedures to avoid inexplicable delays; (ii) xation of time limit for
action at the Headquarter level; (iii) adoption of a liberal and pragmatic approach
for making the good use of the system; and increase in the frequency of revision
board meetings to decide cases as promptly as possible.
(D) At the Government Level
Regarding the improvement in the system of premature release of prisoners,
the respondents made the following suggestions: (i) Issuance of strict instructions
to the DMs, SSPs, POs to avoid unnecessary delays in the submission of the reports
called for, as the delay at their ends makes the system inexpeditious; (ii) Change
the old mindset of routine rejections of cases, especially on the adverse reports
of the DMs and SSPs; (iii) Cases be rejected on the basis of hard facts, carefully
investigated and the reasons of rejections be clearly stated and communicated
to the prisoner concerned in writing; (iv) Speedy disposal of cases by xing a
time-frame for decision-making; (v) Impartial and quick action at all levels of
processing; and (vi) Simplication of procedures and rules.
IV. Conclusions on the basis of Prisoners’ Perception of the System of
Premature Release
1. The respondents viewed that the beneciaries of the system of premature
release are generally the advanced age prisoners and many of them in
their past fties.
2. They further viewed that the prematurely released prisoners with long-
term sentences had been mostly those who had been convicted of the
graver offences under different sections of the IPC.
3. Most such prisoners according to them were those who had been
convicted for sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment,
who have had served more than three-fourth of their sentences with or
without remission.
172
4. Majority of the releasees on whom section 433-A applied had already

served the mandatory sentence of 14 years.
5. Lifers who had already served the period of sentence ranging from 10
years to 14 years with or without remission had been the ones whose
cases had been recommended for premature release.
6. There had occurred considerable delay in the processing of their release
papers (Nominal Form A under the U.P. Prisoners’ Release on Probation
Act, 1938), even at the end of jail authorities. The eligible prisoners had
to approach the concerned jail ofcials, cajoling and beseeching them
to process their papers soon enough and for onward submission. The
respondents said that they had been considerably inconvenienced.
7. A large number of eligible prisoners had not received timely information
regarding the progress of the case les/papers at different levels and
had been anxiously approaching the concerned jail ofcials. Most of
them had been in dark about what is going on in their cases. Lucky had
been the prisoners who had got information either from jail authorities
or from their parokars (kiths and kins persuing the cases at different
ends). The prevailing situation falls foul with the citizens' right to get the
sought after information.
8. A large number of prisoners (more than three-fourth of the respondents)
had not been getting any information regarding the level at which the
le had reached or was stuck up. This was primarily due to: (a) adverse
economic condition of the family members who could not afford to
approach the concerned ofcials at different levels – the thana (local
police station) level, the ofce of the District Magistrate and the ofce
of the Probation Ofcer; (b) unavailability of any effective (meaning
sincere) person in the family or among close relations who could keep a
constant watch on the movement of papers from one level to the other.
The prisoners’ lament was that there is no mechanism which may keep
the prisoners informed of the progress of their papers at different levels.
9. The major difculties faced by the prisoners were as follows:
(a) The whole process/procedure causes unnecessary delays and is marked
by administrative insensitivity and indifference.
(b) Longer delays occur at the DM, SSP and PO levels.
(c) Police reports are highly biased and hostile to the idea of prisoners being
released prematurely.
(d) In quite many cases the police functionaries deputed to write the report,
or furnish the information therefor, either had not done thorough, fair
and objective inquiries or had been allegedly demanding money for
giving favourable report. In many cases, the respondents alleged that
173
the police functionaries had been bribed by the opposition parties for
giving unfavourable and partisan reports.
(e) Reports given by DM/SSP/PO were said to be lacking in fairness and
had preferred routine rejections on lmsy grounds.
(f) Preferential treatment in regard to acceptance or rejection of the cases of
premature release had created a perception in the prisoners’ mind that
they had been discriminated against because in many cases similarly
placed convicts had been granted the favour. The system of selective
discrimination had invited anger and hostility amongst the prisoner
community against the whole system.
10. The prisoners desired the following in respect of reforming the system:
(a) Create a mechanism to ensure that the concerned prisoners get timely
information regarding the progress of their papers.
(b) Decide cases as promptly as possible by ensuring that unnecessary
delays at different levels do not occur.
(c) Ensure that reports from the DM/SSP/PO are submitted in time (without
involving unnecessary delays)
(d) Allow automatic release of prisoners after 14 years of mandatory
sentence
(e) Give greater weightage to the ‘good conduct’ report of the jail ofcials
(f) Accord priority to rst-time casual offenders.
(g) Make the process corruption free
(h) Ensure compliance of the rules in letter and spirit
(i) Allow release of the old, inrm, diseased and disabled prisoners on
humanitarian grounds
(j) Adopt a determinate sentencing policy.
V. Broad Conclusions
Based on the basis of the information received from the Director Generals of
Prisons from 13 States and Union Territories; from information about the operation
of the system in the State of U.P.; from the responses of 36 Prison Superintendents
of District and Central Jails in U.P. and from the responses of the 100 prisoners
interviewed, we have had reported in details, the important conclusions which
emerged from the empirical information. Now we present the broad conclusions
which deserve attention and action in regard to streamlining the system.
1. Although the power of premature release is to be exercised by the State
Government under the provisions of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the procedure and practice followed by the State
Governments to exercise the said power is not uniform throughout the
country.
174
2. Some of the States like Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and U.P. have incorporated
the procedure in their special laws while the others have incorporated the
same in their rules or Jail Manuals, and thus the system provided for, differs
from State to State
3. The procedure and practices in regard to review of sentences for premature
release vary from State to State. Conditions of eligibility, constitution of
recommendatory revising boards, processing of papers and procedures for
obtaining bonds differ from one State to another. Further, the guidelines
governing the question of premature release were not being followed
meticulously so much so that the Sentence. Reviewing Boards had not been
meeting regularly.
4. Since the system of premature release of prisoners varies from State to State,
there is, therefore, no procedural or operational uniformity. There is also
a widespread feeling that the system of premature release of prisoners is
generally operated upon in an arbitrary manner with little regard to the
merits of the case. There have been complaints by the prisoners about the
manner and mode of granting premature releases. It is alleged that the grant
of premature release is guided by the whims and fancies of the persons
involved in granting it, and as such, crafty prisoners manoeuvre the system
to their advantage.
5. Preferential treatment, in some cases compared to other similarly placed
convicts, creates a perception in the mind of a prisoner that he is being
discriminated against. This breeds anger and hostility against the whole
system.
6. The police inquiries in most cases are said to be made not through senior
police ofcials but through middle or lower ranking police functionaries.
Further, the police reports are mechanically done, and routinely oppose the
premature release of prisoners, most often on untenable and hypothetical
grounds/apprehensions.
7. The Actual operation of the system of premature release of prisoners is
plagued by bureaucratic indifference, administrative and procedural delays,
and the system is allegedly highly prone to corruption and favouritism.
8. The prisoners’ perception is that the system is unfair and insensitive, and thus
makes him develop disregard for the proclaimed objective of correctional
treatment in prison. This renders the prospects of the prisoners’ reform much
more difcult.
9. Reportedly there had been delays and indenite postponements of the cases
of eligible prisoners under section 433-A. There are many such cases of
convicts who had undergone 14 years of mandatory imprisonment, whose
applications are not being processed for different reasons.
10. There are widespread disparities and differing standards applied by various
States in considering the cases of prisoners under section 433-A.
175
PART-II
SUGGESTIONS
Finally, we present the list of suggestions which we consider as deserving
attention of the authorities concerned in their exercise of streamlining the system
of premature release of prisoners. These suggestions have been numbered as per
our sense of priority.
1. There is a need to bring in a basic uniformity in the operation of the relevant
laws, rules, regulations, procedures and policies governing the system of
premature release of prisoners all over the country. For this purpose we
suggest that the State Governments and Union Territory Administration
under whose jurisdictions the prisons are administered) may be advised by
the Bureau of Police Research and Development, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Govt. of India (which looks after the subject of prison reform in the country)
to make appropriate modication in the rules and regulations as per the
guidelines of the National Human Rights Commission as also the guidelines
contained in the Model Prison Manual for the Superintendence and
Management of Prisons in India formulated the Bureau of Police Research
and Development in 2003, impressing upon the concerned ofcials looking
after prison matters at the State and Union Territories level that a greater
uniformity of standards needs to be established and achieved.
2. There is a need to make the system of premature release of prisoners more
objective, rational and liberal in conformity with the correctional objectives
of imprisonment. Further, the issue of streamlining the system should
specically aim at making it more exible, great deal simplied and largely
free from unnecessary delays, administrative bottlenecks, allegations of
corruption and favouritism.
3. A uniform procedure and terminology for premature release needs to be
adopted in the country. It is being recommended in view of the fact that
rules and procedures for premature release in different States show a great
deal of variation (despite certain amount of commonality) and create a lot of
confusion through the use of different key terms. Therefore, we recommend
that the term ‘parole’, as used in the international sense, should substitute the
term ‘premature release’. Further, the term parole be dened as a procedure
whereby a person undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, who is considered
suitable, may be released under specied conditions, at a time deemed
appropriate by the State Government, before the expiry of his sentence so
that he may secure for himself a timely rehabilitation and reassimilation in
society.
4. The eligibility criteria for premature release as suggested in the Model
Prison Manual (2003) and in the NHRC Guidelines may be accepted by all
176
the State Government and Union Territory Administrations and accordingly

incorporated in their Jail Manuals.
5. The sentence of every long-term prisoner who should be brought under
revision as soon as he has served half of the period awarded by the court
in the case of non-habitual criminals and two-thirds of that period in the
case of habitual convicts, provided in both cases that remission earned, but
not remission granted in celebration of public events, should be included in
calculating the period undergone, and provided also that no sentence could
come up for revision until a period of two and a half years, including the
remission, has been served.
6. In determining whether or not a prisoner should be prematurely released,
the Board should take into consideration:
(a) the likelihood of the prisoner reoffending
(b) the protection of the public, including the risk to the victims, or by
persons related to victims including the prosecution witnesses
(c) the rehabilitation of the prisoner
(d) any special remarks made by the court in passing sentence
(e) the likelihood of the prisoner complying with the conditions
(f) the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offences, for which the
prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment, including his prior criminal
history.
(g) the behaviour of the prisoner while in prison
(h) any reports tendered to the Board on the social background of the
prisoner, the medical, psychological or psychiatric condition of the
prisoner or any other matter relating to the prisoner.
(i) the probable circumstances of the prisoner after release from prison.
(j) any other matters that the Board thinks are relevant.
If the Board defers making a decision on whether or not a prisoner should be
prematurely released, or refuses to release a prisoner, it must cause a notice of its
decision in writing to be given to the prisoner, and where it refuses, its reasons
for so refusing.
The Board must ensure that its proceedings are conducted properly and
fairly. While there is no formal avenue of appeal against the decision of the
Board, offenders may be permitted to request a review of any Board decision.
This review may be initiated in writing by the offender, or by a person on behalf
of the offender, or by the offender requesting an interview with the Board. In
making decisions to grant, deny or defer the release, the Board should consider
each case on its merits and adopt a exible approach to streamline the decision
making process.
177
7. In view of the adverse repercussions of the Section 433-A of the Criminal

Procedure Code, we strongly feel that this section should be suitably amended
to remove the unreasonable restrictions imposed by it on the premature
release of lifers.
8. Premature release is not advisable if there is a reasonable risk that the
inmate will relapse into crime, or that the risk of reoffending is deemed
to be high. Release is advisable if there are good prospects of the inmate
leading a law-abiding life. Release is also advisable if there are weighty
humanitarian considerations, such as the inmate’s poor health, the serious
illness of his spouse or children or other circumstances in the home resulting
in the assessment that continued incarceration would lead to serious harmful
effects for the family.
9. Largescale prematures release of prisoners on special occasions (15th August,
26th January and birth anniversaries of national or regional leaders) are
wholly against public interest letting loose a large number of criminals who
have undergone a very short sentence will have a detrimental effect on the
society at large. The people will lose faith in the judicial system itself.
10. The processing of the papers of the prisoners undergoing sentence of
imprisonment for life should be initiated by the Superintendent of the Central
Jail at least three months in advance of the date when the prisoner would
become eligible for consideration of premature release as per the criteria laid
down by the State Government in that behalf.
11. There is a need for creation of a mechanism to keep the prisoners’ informed
from time to time regarding the progress in the processing of their papers
at different levels. We feel that a special cell be created in the ofce of the
Director General of Prisons in each State which would be responsible for
responding to prisoners’ queries when specically asked for through a
written request.
12. A computerised record of all the prisoners serving sentence in prisons for
a follow-up of their cases, is extremely desirable in every prison as well as
at the Prisons Headquarters. The monitoring system should be single-le
system for the case of every prisoner. Such les should be maintained at the
prison institution. Monitoring of all cases should be done every month at the
prison level, every three months at Prisons Headquarter level and every six
months at the Government level.
13. Parole Ofcers/Aftercare Ofcers/Prison Welfare Ofcers should be
appointed in all jails at the rate of one for 200 prisoners. It should be a part of
duty of these ofcers, in coordination with after-care agencies in the eld, to
organize pre-release programmes for prisoners who are due for release in the
next six months and getting them ready for release in all respects.
178
Annexure – 1
Case Studies
179
180
Annexure – 1 Case Studies
Case No – 1
Name: Radhey Shyam Pandey

Father’s Name: Sri Kisun Dutt Pandey
Address: Village & Post Madhavpur, P. S. Kotwali Dehat, District- Gonda
Date of Birth: 2-4-1959
Education: B.A.
When the Process has started: July 2009
Type of procedure: Form –A Under the U.P.Probation Act, 1938
Guardian: Brother (Sri Om Prakash Pandey)
Case – 302, 449, 34
Case Details: Conviction from Session Court – 14-5-1982
Conviction from High Court – 1-9-1992
Conviction from Supreme Court – 1-2-1993
Presently in Jail: Model Jail, Lucknow
181
Case No -2
Name: Raj Kumar Rastogi

Father’s Name: Late Vishmahar Dayal
Address: 57, Mirdahi Tola, Kotwali Biswan, Sitapur
Date of Birth: 14-1-1956
Education: B.A.
When the Process has started: July 2009
Type of Procedure: Form –A Under the U.P.Probation Act, 1938
Guardian: Wife
Case – 302, 449, 34
Case Details: Conviction from Session Court – 1977
Conviction from High Court – 1982
Conviction from Supreme Court – 1993
Presently in Jail: Model Jail, Lucknow
182
Annexure -2
International Response
183
184
Annexure -2 International Response
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
Premature
Annexure Release of Prisoners
-2 International Response
192
193
194
195
196
197
Premature
Annexure Release of Prisoners
-2 International Response
198

Premature Release of Prisoners

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Premature Release of Prisoners

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Premature Release of Prisoners

Dr. Mridul Srivastava

The journey of mankind from barbarianism to civilization is the story of the

Dr. Mridul Srivastava

Evolution of Punishment System in India

Correctional Aspect of Prisons in Criminal Justice System

Indian Commissions and Committees appointed

Government considered that the reformation of the prisoner is of paramount

providing a thrust towards the development of prisons in keeping with certain

Development of Prison Policies in India

9. In 1957 All India Jail Manual Committee appointed.

Punishment Vs Reformation and Rehabilitation

What is a crime? It is never easy to precisely dene a legal concept. Jurists

6. Prisoners should be treated individually. Collective treatment and punishment

to be dealt with as an individual, and corrective handling should be so devised as

Our practice of punishment seems to require justication. It involves society

prudential perspective. Deterrence cannot justify punishments here, or indeed

Challenges before the Premature Release of the

of leave’ or ‘emergency release’. The objective of ‘parole’, as internationally

A thorough review of this material reveals.

The Present Position

The Continuing Criticism of the System

The Main Charges Against the System

(3) The System is Ridden with Unfair Practices

prisoners have legitimate grievances. On paper the system seems to be humane,

The System of Premature Release of Prisoners

I. Manner of commission of murder

II. Motive for commission of murder

III. Anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime

IV. Magnitude of crime

V. Personality of victim of murder

The Historical Backdrop

Type of Prisoners Aggregate When to be reviewed

The Present Position

or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence

In the case of convicts sentenced to life imprisonment (reckoned as 20 years)

The Recent Amendment

Efforts at Streamlining the System of Premature Release of

Implementation Status of Mulla Committee Report on the Subject

Para 13.11.32: Special consideration should be given to women prisoners in the

14. Madhya Pradesh - √ - - -

Table 3 : “What portion a convict should have completed to become eligible

10. Jammu & Kashmir - - - - NR -

Table 4 : “What portion a convict should have completed to become eligible

Sl. STATE/UT RESPONSE

Table 5 : “What portion a convict should have completed to become eligible

32. Daman & Diu - - - - NR -

32. Daman & Diu - - NR -

31. D & N Haveli - - - - NR -

29. A & N Island - - √ - - -

Sl. STATE/UT RESPONSE

26. Uttar Pradesh - - √ - -

Table 13 : “A jail ofcer of what rank maintains the record of premature

Initiative of the National Human Rights Commission

3. The following categories of prisoners may be considered eligible for the

“Power to suspend or remit sentences:

1. Minister in-charge, Jail Department/Principal Secretary, Chairman

The recommendation of the Sentence Review Board shall not be invalid

3. Eligibility for Premature Release

4. Inability for Premature Release

5. Procedure for Processing of the Cases for Consideration of the

6. Procedure and Guidelines for the Review Board

recommendations of Superintendent of Police, Chief Probation Ofcer and

monitoring could only be possible, with necessary infrastructural and manpower