'No savage justice': HC orders review of convict's early-release plea
Chandigarh: It would be naive to hope for a society without crime, but the state must try to rehabilitate offenders and allow them to reshape themselves as functional members of society, Punjab and Haryana high court observed, while setting aside the denial of a life convict’s plea for premature release .
“The overarching goal of punishment is deterrence and the sentiment must not be weaponised to glamorise savage justice,” Justice Sumeet Goel said, while allowing the petition filed by Mukesh . “For a convict serving a life sentence, liberty has to be the most precious of possessions. It should not be assumed that all convicts, when released, will unleash revenge onto their prosecutors,” the court said.
Once eligible for premature release, govt cannot deny a convict this concession without recording due reasons, the bench observed in its recent order, pointing out that it directly impacted their Fundamental Rights.
The petitioner and three co-accused were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by a Panipat court in Feb 2009. The premature release plea of the co-convicts was granted but not Mukesh’s.
Mukesh’s counsel Lajpat Rai Sharma submitted in HC that he had earlier approached the court, seeking parity for Mukesh with his co-convicts. The court disposed of his petition on Dec 2, 2024, observing that if his case was on a par with the co-convicts, he was entitled to the same relief under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Rai submitted that the authorities rejected Mukesh’s plea on Feb 18, 2025, on the ground that he had not completed 14 years of the actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence along with remissions. The convict challenged that order as well, following which HC, on April 21, 2026, directed the authorities to take a reasoned decision.
However, Mukesh’s plea was turned down again on Aug 24, 2026, and deferred for reconsideration after a year. His counsel submitted that Mukesh should be treated on a par with the three co-convicts who had already been ordered to be released.
The state counsel submitted that Mukesh’s plea had been rejected as he had committed a heinous crime, but the state could not deny that he fulfilled the conditions for premature release.
After hearing both sides, Justice Goel observed, “The state cannot indulge in cherry picking and only provide the concession of premature release to a select few out of the pool of similarly situated convicts and such approach is highly inequitable...”
“Correctional institutes must not only be looked at as a place where punishment is carried out, but also a place of rehabilitation. The criminal justice dispensation system must be guided by the idea of allowing the offender to rectify his wrong and reintegrate into society as a law-abiding member once the sentence is served… It would be in line with the welfarist approach of state to make an attempt towards rehabilitation of offenders and allow them to reshape themselves as functional members of society,” HC observed.
Setting aside the Aug 24 order, HC directed the authorities to reconsider Mukesh’s case strictly in accordance with the policy and law laid down in judgments of Supreme Court and high court. Any deviation from the court’s orders would entitle the petitioner to seek initiation of contempt proceedings against the official, the bench said.
“The overarching goal of punishment is deterrence and the sentiment must not be weaponised to glamorise savage justice,” Justice Sumeet Goel said, while allowing the petition filed by Mukesh . “For a convict serving a life sentence, liberty has to be the most precious of possessions. It should not be assumed that all convicts, when released, will unleash revenge onto their prosecutors,” the court said.
Once eligible for premature release, govt cannot deny a convict this concession without recording due reasons, the bench observed in its recent order, pointing out that it directly impacted their Fundamental Rights.
The petitioner and three co-accused were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by a Panipat court in Feb 2009. The premature release plea of the co-convicts was granted but not Mukesh’s.
Mukesh’s counsel Lajpat Rai Sharma submitted in HC that he had earlier approached the court, seeking parity for Mukesh with his co-convicts. The court disposed of his petition on Dec 2, 2024, observing that if his case was on a par with the co-convicts, he was entitled to the same relief under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Rai submitted that the authorities rejected Mukesh’s plea on Feb 18, 2025, on the ground that he had not completed 14 years of the actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence along with remissions. The convict challenged that order as well, following which HC, on April 21, 2026, directed the authorities to take a reasoned decision.
However, Mukesh’s plea was turned down again on Aug 24, 2026, and deferred for reconsideration after a year. His counsel submitted that Mukesh should be treated on a par with the three co-convicts who had already been ordered to be released.
The state counsel submitted that Mukesh’s plea had been rejected as he had committed a heinous crime, but the state could not deny that he fulfilled the conditions for premature release.
After hearing both sides, Justice Goel observed, “The state cannot indulge in cherry picking and only provide the concession of premature release to a select few out of the pool of similarly situated convicts and such approach is highly inequitable...”
“Correctional institutes must not only be looked at as a place where punishment is carried out, but also a place of rehabilitation. The criminal justice dispensation system must be guided by the idea of allowing the offender to rectify his wrong and reintegrate into society as a law-abiding member once the sentence is served… It would be in line with the welfarist approach of state to make an attempt towards rehabilitation of offenders and allow them to reshape themselves as functional members of society,” HC observed.
Setting aside the Aug 24 order, HC directed the authorities to reconsider Mukesh’s case strictly in accordance with the policy and law laid down in judgments of Supreme Court and high court. Any deviation from the court’s orders would entitle the petitioner to seek initiation of contempt proceedings against the official, the bench said.
Next Story