The Calcutta High Court directed the West Bengal government to decide on a life‑sentenced prisoner’s plea for premature release within a specified timeframe, citing undue delay in acting upon the State Sentence Review Board’s recommendation. The bench, led by Justice Om Narayan Rai, emphasized that delay in responding to such pleas undermines the relief to which the convict is entitled and called for prompt action.
The petitioner, Bijoy Mukherjee, had submitted an application for early release, which was recommended positively by the Sentence Review Board. The prisoner contended that despite the Board’s recommendation, the State authorities had failed to take any decision for over a year. Earlier, a single‑judge bench had set aside the Board’s previous rejection of the plea and directed reconsideration in accordance with applicable guidelines. Following that, the Board convened and recommended Mukherjee’s release, but no administrative action was taken thereafter.
During the hearing, the State acknowledged that the Board’s recommendation had been forwarded to the relevant department but that no final decision had yet been rendered. The High Court found this explanation insufficient, noting that prolonged delay effectively defeats the purpose of the Review Board’s recommendation. The Court observed that matters involving premature release require timely consideration, and extended inaction can result in denial of justice, particularly where the administrative process has already concluded in favor of the convict.
Accordingly, the Court ordered that the State must decide on the convict’s plea as early as possible, and preferably within six weeks from the date of the order. The directive ensures procedural fairness and emphasizes institutional accountability, highlighting the importance of prompt action in cases affecting the liberty of individuals. The Court’s order does not itself authorize release nor reevaluate the merits of the petitioner’s case; it merely mandates expeditious administrative action based on the Review Board’s recommendation.
The writ petition remains listed for further consideration after the State communicates its decision to the Court. The judgment underscores the principle that delay in administrative processes, particularly those impacting liberty, is unacceptable and reinforces the obligation of State authorities to act promptly when recommendations for release have been made.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.