Jammu and Kashmir High Court Upholds Validity of Rules Excluding Terrorist Crimes from Remission: “Reformative Theory of Punishment Must Take a Back Seat for Heinous Offences”

Court’s Decision:

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld the validity of Rule 54.1 of the now-repealed Jammu and Kashmir Jail Manual and Rule 20.10 of the Jammu and Kashmir Prison Manual, 2022, which exclude certain categories of crimes, including terrorist crimes, from the purview of remission. The Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and two writ petitions challenging these rules. The Court held that excluding terrorist crimes from remission is constitutionally valid, does not violate the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21, and aligns with the objective of ensuring public safety and order.

Facts:

1. The appellant and petitioner in the first writ petition, who were convicted of offences under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and sentenced to life imprisonment for their involvement in serious crimes, challenged the rejection of their requests for remission.
2. The petitioner in the second writ petition, convicted of offences under Section 302 RPC and Section 3(2)(i) and 4 of the TADA Act, argued against the applicability of the new rules on remission, stating they had served over 22 years in custody.
3. Both petitioners argued that the denial of remission despite long-term incarceration violated their fundamental rights and went against the reformative policy of sentencing.

Issues:

1. Whether the exclusion of certain categories of offences from the scope of remission violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the rules denying remission to prisoners convicted of terrorist crimes are arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The petitioners contended that the exclusion of terrorist crimes from remission is arbitrary and inconsistent with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as it deprives prisoners of their right to be considered for remission.
2. It was argued that the nature of the offence should not solely determine eligibility for remission, especially if a prisoner demonstrates good conduct and reform during incarceration.
3. The petitioners placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Joseph v. State of Kerala, Rajo @ Rajwa v. State of Bihar, and A.G. Perarivalan v. State, which emphasize the need for a reformative approach.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The State argued that certain types of heinous crimes, such as terrorism, form a separate category because of their severe impact on society and public order.
2. It was contended that putting crimes like terrorism beyond the purview of remission does not violate Article 14, as these crimes have a significant detrimental effect on the community, warranting stricter control.
3. The respondents relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. V. Sriharan, which supports the differentiation between categories of crimes in terms of remission eligibility.

Analysis of the Law:

The Court analyzed the constitutional validity of the rules excluding terrorist crimes from remission, considering various Supreme Court decisions. It noted that in cases involving heinous crimes, the reformative theory of punishment must take a back seat. The Court emphasized that the legal precedents, including Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra and Maru Ram v. Union of India, establish that life imprisonment means incarceration for the convict’s entire natural life unless remission is specifically granted.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra: Held that a sentence of life imprisonment means imprisonment for the entire remaining period of the convict’s natural life.
2. State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar and State of Haryana v. Jagdish: Established that when policies differ on the date of conviction and the date of consideration for remission, the policy in effect at the time of conviction applies, unless a more liberal policy is introduced.
3. V. Sriharan @ Murugan v. Union of India: Reaffirmed that life imprisonment lasts until the convict’s natural life ends, subject to constitutional powers of remission.

Court’s Reasoning:

The Court held that the impact of terrorist crimes on public safety and social order justifies a distinct treatment in terms of remission eligibility. The Court emphasized that the reformative theory cannot be the sole guiding principle in cases involving heinous crimes. Such classification, based on the nature of the offence, serves the objective of deterring potential offenders and ensuring that those who pose a risk to society remain incarcerated.

Conclusion:

1. The appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment was dismissed as it lacked merit.
2. The constitutional validity of Rule 54.1 of the J&K Jail Manual and Rule 20.10 of the J&K Prison Manual, 2022, was upheld.
3. The petitioners were held ineligible for remission based on the impugned rules, but the Court noted that the competent constitutional authorities could still exercise their powers under Articles 72 and 161 to consider remission.

Implications:

The judgment clarifies that the constitutional validity of excluding certain categories of crimes, such as terrorist offences, from remission is sound and justifiable under the law. This sets a precedent for the treatment of other serious offences and reinforces the idea that the state can exercise stricter control for crimes posing a severe threat to public order. The judgment also reaffirms that the constitutional powers under Articles 72 and 161 remain unfettered, providing a separate avenue for seeking remission beyond statutory rules.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case as Crime Value Falls Below ₹1 Crore Threshold Under Section 45