Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling: Saying that sentiment must not be weaponised to glamorise “savage justice”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an order rejecting the plea for premature release of a murder convict on the ground that he had already undergone over 20 years of incarceration.

Justice Sumeet Goel, as a result, set aside the September 2025 order of the authority concerned and directed it to decide the plea afresh.

The judge, interestingly, quoted Justice Krishna Iyer on the significance of liberty for a convict as saying, “Social Justice (sic) is the signature tune of our Constitution, and the little man in peril of losing his liberty is the consumer of social justice.”

The ruling pointed out that though crime — being a double murder case — was heinous, the goal of a civilised legal system is reformation and rehabilitation, not perpetual retribution.

“The overarching goal of punishment is deterrence, and the sentiment must not be weaponised to glamorise savage justice. People from all walks of life hold the idea of liberty close to their hearts and have historically done everything in their power not to part from it,” read the order passed on March 27.

The high court was hearing the plea filed by one Sanjay Kumar, who was awarded a life sentence in the murder case, after the trial court found him guilty on May 1, 1998.

The high court pulled up the state and cautioned against indulging in “cherry picking” by granting premature release to select convicts while denying the same benefit to others similarly placed.

“For a convict serving a life sentence, liberty has to be the most precious of possessions. It should not be assumed that all convicts, when released, will unleash revenge onto their prosecutors,” Justice Goel added.

The high court also mentioned that the convict’s conduct in jail, state of mind, gravity of the offence, social background and behaviour while on parole must be considered before deciding upon the question of his premature release.

The court noted that the petitioner has committed grave offences, but emphasised that once a duly enacted policy is in existence, it must be honoured and applied to each case in its letter and spirit.

It pointed out that the policy instituted by the state for premature release is equally applicable to all convicts and directly impacts their fundamental rights provided under 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 the petitioner this concession without recording due reasons for the same,” Justice Goel said.

The high court emphasised that the state is duty-bound to act fairly and to proceed according to the policy formulated by it in a manner that does not discriminate between similarly situated persons in the absence of an intelligible differentia.

“Non-arbitrariness is a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution, and the state and all its agencies are required to abide by it,” the high court said.

The petitioner claimed that he was convicted for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 (murder) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the trial court’s order of 1998.

It was claimed that the petitioner’s case had been deferred because the accused persons had committed double murder, which is a heinous crime, and further, the petitioner had committed four jail offences and also remained in another criminal offence.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Lajpat Rai Sharma argued that the petitioner had earlier approached this court seeking the premature release, in which notice of motion was issued and the same is now pending adjudication for May 7, 2026.

Sharma further submitted that on completion of the requisite 20 years of sentence, including six years of remission, the case of the petitioner was put up before the state-level committee, but the same was rejected by the September 2025 order, and deferred for reconsideration after two years from June 30, 2025.

Representing the state, senior deputy advocate general Priyanka Sadar Thakur has opposed the grant of the petition in hand by arguing that the case of the petitioner has rightly been rejected and deferred as he has committed a heinous crime.

The high court, however, noted that the counsel could not controvert the fact that the petitioner fulfils the conditions mentioned in the relevant policy, which is applicable in the case of the petitioner.