Imprisonment is for correction, not destruction of personality: High Court

Asserting that prisons must be institutions of reformation and not spaces of annihilation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that convicts sentenced to life imprisonment must be considered for release once they have served a sufficient term to reflect the gravity of their offence.

Allowing the plea of a life convict seeking premature release, Justice Sandeep Moudgil made it clear that imprisonment was meant to transform an anti-social personality into a social one. “Crime is an outcome of a distorted mind and jails must have an environment of hospital for treatment and care,” the court asserted, while referring to the State’s obligation to provide a reformative prison atmosphere.

Reiterating the constitutional and rehabilitative foundation of incarceration, Justice Moudgil added: “Imprisonment is for correction and not for destruction of personalities. However, the environment inside prisons is not conducive to reform.”

Justice Moudgil was hearing a petition filed against Haryana challenging the rejection of the petitioner’s case for premature release despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria prescribed under the applicable Premature Release Policy dated April 12, 2002.

The petitioner, convicted in 2000 for house-breaking by night resulting in death or grievous hurt under Sections 460 and 396 of the IPC had been sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5,000. As per the 2002 policy, a life convict was required to undergo 20 years of actual sentence and 25 years of total sentence including remissions for consideration. The Bench was told that the petitioner had already undergone more than 24 years of actual imprisonment and 29 years including remission by the time his case was rejected on December 11, 2023.

Justice Moudgil asserted that the law provided for executive remissions based on discretion, which in turn was governed by guidelines framed at the State level. “As an effective alternative to the death penalty, imprisonment — and specifically life imprisonment — has been favoured by legal systems,” the court pointed out.

Justice Moudgil further asserted that the primary objective of premature release was the reformation of offenders and their reintegration into the social mainstream, while simultaneously ensuring protection of society. “These two aspects are closely interlinked,” the Bench observed, adding that the conduct, behaviour and performance of a prisoner during incarceration have a direct bearing on their rehabilitative potential and the possibility of earning release through remission or a premature release order.

“The most important consideration for premature release of prisoners is that they have become harmless and useful members of a civilised society,” Justice Moudgil emphasised.

Punjab