High Court orders interim bail for 412 inmates awaiting premature release in Punjab

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the release of 412 inmates in Punjab – whose applications for premature release have been pending – on interim bail within two weeks. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar also admonished the state authorities for their evident failure in processing the inmates’ applications.

“The rather conspicuous failure on part of the State agencies to process the applications of such a considerable number of inmates is deeply concerning. In doing so, the applicants-inmates have been subjected to further incarceration when they may be eligible to be released. Such an undisciplined approach is symptomatic of the culture of apathy that has developed on the subject of rights and well-being of convicts," Justice Brar asserted.

The Bench also directed the States of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh to file affidavits with details of premature release cases pending for the last two years. Justice Brar added that the prisoners could not be treated as “second-class citizens" and cautioned the administration against “cherry-picking" cases while denying fundamental rights.

The directions came after an affidavit dated December 10, 2024, indicated that applications for premature release filed by 412 convicts across different jails in Punjab were pending consideration. Justice Brar held that the State’s failure to consider eligible convicts for premature release amounted to a violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

“Once eligible to be considered for premature release according to the applicable policy, the State cannot deny them this concession without recording due reasons for the same. In fact, the State is duty-bound to act fairly and proceed according to the policy formulated by it in a manner that does not discriminate between similarly situated persons in absence of an intelligible differentia," the court asserted.

The Bench added non-arbitrariness was a facet in Article 14 of the Constitution and the State and all its agencies were required to abide by it. Justice Brar further admonished the State by asserting: “The incarcerated cannot be expected to live at the whims and fancies of the State and neither does their incarceration entitle the administration to jeopardize their fundamental rights."

Emphasising the constitutional guarantee of liberty and dignity, Justice Brar added: “The fundamental rights, which includes right to liberty and dignity, have been granted by the Constitution, and not the State for them to be withdrawn in this undignified fashion. These rights are inherent to all individuals by virtue of their humanity, putting them beyond the scope of arbitrary authority."

Citing the case of “Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India, Justice Brar reiterated that policies on premature release must meet the standards of being fair, just and reasonable. “Treating their applications for grant of premature release as trivial and elective, appears to be a measure of further unjustified retribution which is expressly forbidden by Article 20(3) of the Constitution."

The Bench added the applications were left unprocessed, forcing the court to intervene despite specific directions by the high court. “Shockingly, some applications are pending for almost two years. As such, this Court is left with no other option but to direct the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrates to release such prisoners on interim bail within two weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Punjab