Arbitrary denial of premature release to eligible life convicts serving over twenty years is legally unsustainable.

The petitioner, the 79-year-old father of convict Raju @ Devendra Choubey, challenged the rejection of his son's premature release

The convict was sentenced to life imprisonment on 29.01.2005 under Sections 302/34 and 120B of the IPC, a conviction upheld by both the High Court and the Supreme Court

The convict has served over 20 years of actual incarceration

While co-accused persons had already been released, the State Sentence Review Board rejected the petitioner’s son’s representation on 12.12.2025

The petitioner argued the rejection was arbitrary, failing to consider the convict’s long incarceration, good conduct, the death of the convict’s wife, and the advanced age of his dependent parents

Whether the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the State Sentence Review Board rejecting the claim for premature release was legal and justified.

The court primarily applied Rule 5(i) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 (as amended on 23.04.2025), which stipulates that life convicts who have completed 14 years of actual imprisonment are eligible for remission consideration

It relied on State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216, establishing a convict's right to be considered for remission fairly and reasonably

It further cited Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal (2000) 7 SCC 626, which outlines that authorities must examine the nature of the offense, jail conduct, and the likelihood of recidivism

Finally, the court invoked Article 14 of the Constitution of India to guard against arbitrary or mechanical administrative rejections

The court found that the convict had undergone more than two decades of incarceration, significantly exceeding the 14-year eligibility threshold

It noted that the Review Board failed to provide any "justifiable basis" for treating the convict differently from released co-accused

The court observed that the impugned order reflected a "non-application of mind" because it was "conspicuously silent" regarding the convict’s conduct and the mitigating family circumstances, such as the death of his wife and the dependency of his minor children and elderly parents

Emphasizing that the philosophy of remission is reformative rather than retributive, the court reasoned that once a convict satisfies the statutory eligibility and lacks adverse reports, a mechanical denial is arbitrary

It held that the convict, Raju @ Devendra Choubey, is entitled to the benefit of premature release under the applicable rules

The Court directed the respondent authorities to release the convict forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case, subject to standard terms and conditions under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968