Right To Live With Dignity Under Article 21 Cannot Be Deprived Merely Due To Conviction: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the right of a person under Article 21 to live a life of dignity cannot be deprived merely because he was convicted.

A single-bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya directed the Sentence Review Board (SSRB) to reconsider the plea for premature release of the convict filed by his wife (petitioner) and held:

"The right of the petitioner under Article 21 to live a life of dignity cannot be deprived merely because the petitioner was convicted. The life behind bars has already been undergone by the petitioner for a considerable period. There cannot be any double punishment on the petitioner by refusing the petitioner an opportunity to reintegrate in mainstream society even if the petitioner is otherwise eligible."

The petitioner had challenged the SSRB's order which rejected her plea for the early release of her husband who had been convicted and handed a life sentence.

The petitioner argued that the SSRB had not been properly constituted and that the grounds cited for rejection of her prayer was not in consonance with the stance taken by the Apex Court and other High Courts regarding remission. 

It was submitted that the Apex Court had directed the consideration of holistic grounds for the rehabilitation of convicts, leading up to their release and had held that the SSRB shall not entirely rely on the view of the presiding judge or the police. 

State counsel submitted that although a gist of reasons for rejecting her plea for her husband's remissions were supplied to her, the counsel did not have any instructions. 

Court noted that the grounds of rejection, which were annexed to the writ petition appeared to be comprehensive, and that the petitioner's husband had been in custody for more than 20 years. 

It held that "it is well-settled that the aim of punishment in modern criminal jurisprudence is reformative and not retributive."

It was further observed that the Apex Court had passed various considerations which may be taken into account, apart from the nature of the crime and the propensity of re-occurrence, none of which had been considered by the SSRB in this case. 

It was further held that even the police report which had been cited for denying the petitioner's plea for remission was 'cryptic' since the nature of the petitioner's crime which had occurred long back was the primary consideration. 

While the prayer for early release had been opposed by the victim's family, the Court noted that there needed to be solid reasons to support such opposition.

Accordingly, in finding that the petitioner cannot be subjected to further punishment after having undergone 20 years of imprisonment already, the Court noted that the SSRB had not been properly constituted and thus directed that the petitioner's plea be reconsidered within one month by taking into account the yardsticks indicated in the order.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 14

Case: Mahuya Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal and others

Case No: W.P.A 22366 of 2023

Click here to read order