NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has warned the Gujarat government that failure to implement the state’s amnesty policy in letter and spirit could lead to “strict penal orders”, stressing that any delay beyond the prescribed imprisonment period would render the detention of a prisoner “illegal”.
A bench of Justices Ehsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan harshly criticized the state for being slow to consider early release of a life convict, even though the prisoner has already completed the minimum qualifying sentence of 14 years.
The court explained that once a state establishes a remission policy, it cannot treat it as a mere formality. Although recognizing that early release is not a fundamental right, the Council emphasized that it takes on the status of an “acquired right” once the state chooses to exercise its discretion through a political framework.
Explaining the constitutional risks, the Court held that freedom cannot remain hostage to bureaucratic delay. “In matters relating to a person’s life and liberty, constitutional principles must be relied upon, because every day after the period established by law, and in this case, statutory law relating to the period of imprisonment, a person is deemed to be unlawfully detained and rightly so,” the bench noted, explaining that non-compliance with release timelines directly affects the fundamental right to personal liberty.
This case arose from the confession of Mahesh Kumar Desalal Jangid, a murder convict, who had completed the period required for consideration under the Gujarat Amnesty Policy 1992. Despite this, the state informed the court that his case was still “under consideration” and would be taken before the relevant committee, which meets only a few times a year.
The tribunal found this explanation “totally unacceptable,” noting that the policy itself stipulates that the early release process must begin three months before the completion of 14 years of imprisonment, so that a final decision will be ready by the time the eligibility threshold is reached.
Jangid’s petition was argued through senior advocate Mahalakshmi Bhavani.
Notably, the court said in its order on Thursday that it could have already initiated proceedings against officials at every stage of the decision-making chain – from those who initiate the process to those who receive the final decision, but it refrained from doing so for the time being.
But this postponement came with extreme caution. The court warned that any future breach of this policy would result in “severe penal orders”, including the initiation of automatic contempt proceedings against the erring officials.
It also directed that if the final decision is not recorded by the next hearing, senior officials, including the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Inspector General of Prisons, will have to personally appear before the court to explain the error.
“In the future, if the above condition is not implemented in accordance with the policy itself in full and mandatorily, it will entail strict penal orders from this court, including, but not limited to, initiation of automatic contempt against all persons who do not act in accordance with the policy or if the final order does not come no later than the day on which the convict completes 14 years of effective imprisonment.”
The court also ordered that its directions be circulated across the state through the chief secretary to ensure uniform compliance.
