Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Rejection of Premature Release of Life Convict; Holds State Level Committee Exceeded Jurisdiction and Misapplied Policy

Case Name: Sonia v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 09 December 2025
Citation: CRWP-10284-2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a writ petition challenging rejection of premature release of a life convict whose death sentence had been commuted. The Court held that the competent authority misapplied the applicable premature release policy by considering irrelevant jail offences beyond the prescribed assessment period, exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating trial evidence and the basis of commutation by the Supreme Court, and acted illegally in recommending incarceration “till last breath”. The impugned order was held to be perverse and unsustainable.

Summary: The petitioner, a life convict whose death sentence had been commuted by the Supreme Court, challenged the rejection of her case for premature release under the applicable policy governing remission. It was contended that she fulfilled the eligibility criteria prescribed for convicts whose death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment, and that the rejection order was passed in violation of the policy and settled constitutional principles.

The High Court found that although the authorities correctly identified the applicable policy, they committed a fundamental error by relying upon jail offences committed long before the relevant five-year assessment period prescribed under the policy. The Court held that only the conduct of the convict during the last five years preceding consideration could be taken into account, and reliance on earlier jail misconduct vitiated the decision-making process.

The Court further held that the State Level Committee had no jurisdiction to examine the quality of evidence led at trial, the manner of commission of the offence, or the circumstances under which the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence. Such considerations were held to fall exclusively within the domain of judicial adjudication and could not be revisited while deciding a case for remission.

The High Court also strongly deprecated the recommendation that the petitioner should remain in jail “till her last breath”, holding that neither the Committee nor the competent authority had the power to enlarge or redefine the sentence imposed by the Court. The role of the authorities was confined to assessing eligibility for premature release strictly within the confines of the policy.

Relying on binding precedent of the Supreme Court and earlier decisions of the High Court, the Court reiterated that once a policy for premature release exists, it must be applied objectively, transparently, and without arbitrariness, keeping in view the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21.

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order rejecting premature release was set aside. The respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s case strictly in accordance with the applicable policy and the observations of the Court within the stipulated period. Pending such decision, the petitioner was directed to be released on interim bail subject to furnishing requisite bonds.