words per minute
202
Darsh_KEWAT
00:00
Speed
7.8.26
The petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 07.05.2026 is arbitrary, mechanical, non-speaking and unsustainable in law. He would submit that the petitioner has already undergone actual incarceration for more than 16 years and 10 months and, together with earned remission of 4 years, 9 months and 21 days, has completed more than 21 years of imprisonment. According to him, once the petitioner had crossed the threshold of eligibility for consideration of premature release/remission, his case was required to be considered on relevant, rational and legally permissible parameters, but the respondents have rejected the same in a wholly perfunctory manner. He would further submit that the impugned order does not reflect any independent application of mind by the competent authority and appears to have been passed merely on the basis of the negative recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board. It is contended that the order does not disclose any reasons as to why, despite the petitioner having undergone the requisite period of incarceration and having earned substantial remission, According to learned counsel, an order affecting the liberty of a convict cannot be passed in such a cryptic fashion, particularly when it does not deal with the petitioner's jail conduct, possibility of reformation, age, health, socio-economic background, family circumstances and prospects of reintegration into society. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has a legal right to be considered for remission/premature release in a fair, reasonable and non- arbitrary manner. Though remission may not be claimed as an absolute right, the right to be considered in terms of the applicable statutory provisions and remission framework is undoubtedly a legal right. In the present case, the petitioner's claim has not been examined on the touchstone of the relevant statutory considerations and, therefore, the impugned decision stands vitiated by non-application of mind. He also submits that the materials on record clearly demonstrate that the petitioner's case merited proper and meaningful consideration. The learned sentencing Court, while giving its opinion on 26.04.2025, observed that if otherwise not prohibited, there would be no objection in considering the petitioner's case after completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years with remission.