The Rajasthan High Court has directed the premature release of a life-convict who had spent more than 22 years in prison for the murder of his father. The Court concluded that the grounds used by the Advisory Committee to deny his request—particularly the assertion that he was mentally unstable and that his family would not accept him—were not supported by facts.
The matter came before the Court through a letter written by the convict from the Central Jail in Udaipur. Recognizing the need for proper representation, the Court appointed an Amicus Curiae to examine the case. The Amicus conducted a detailed visit to the prison, interacted with the convict and jail officials, and later submitted a comprehensive report. This report became pivotal to the Court’s final decision.
In the report, the Amicus clarified that the convict showed no signs of mental instability. Instead, he was found to be coherent, communicative, and capable of understanding and responding appropriately. This effectively nullified the Advisory Committee’s earlier conclusion that his psychological state was unsuitable for release.
Another critical aspect addressed in the report was the stance of the convict’s family. While the Committee had stated that the family was unwilling to accept him, the Amicus discovered that the convict’s brother had agreed to take him home and care for him upon release. This finding directly contradicted the earlier rationale provided by authorities.
After considering the Amicus Curiae’s findings, the High Court observed that the convict had become eligible for premature release as per the governing rules, having completed the necessary duration of actual imprisonment required for consideration. The judges emphasized that decisions regarding premature release must rest on credible, verifiable assessments rather than assumptions or uncorroborated claims.
The Court further noted that mental health cannot be used as a vague or untested ground to indefinitely keep a person incarcerated, especially when a qualified assessment shows no disorder. Since the convict had demonstrated good behavior in prison and had a viable support system waiting for him outside, the Court found no legal or moral justification to prolong his custody.
In light of these findings, the Court ordered his premature release, bringing closure to a prolonged period of incarceration. The judgment underscores the importance of rigorous verification when determining a prisoner’s mental state and highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that administrative decisions affecting personal liberty are rooted in fairness, accuracy, and compassion.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.