E-Paper
Governor’s power to grant premature release can’t be exercised arbitrarily: Allahabad HC
The high court made this observation while quashing an order refusing premature release to a convict who had been sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment
The Allahabad high court has held that the governor’s power to grant premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution is a sovereign executive power but it cannot be exercised arbitrarily as it remains regulated by the applicable rules and remission policy.
The bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena made this observation while quashing an order refusing premature release to a convict who had been sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.
The June 26, 2025 order was passed by a joint secretary, Uttar Pradesh Prisons Administration and Reform Services, Lucknow, by which the governor’s decision in exercise of powers under Article 161 of the Constitution, refusing to remit his sentence, was communicated to the petitioner.
The court found that the order suffered from an error apparent on the face of record as it incorrectly recorded the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner. The petitioner—Ram Pratap Singh—was convicted in an attempt to murder case under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the additional sessions judge, Fatehpur, in 2002 and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹2,000.
His criminal appeal before the high court was dismissed in 2019 and thereafter, the Supreme Court also dismissed his special leave petition. In September 2022, a proposal for his premature release was sent to the jail authorities and to the district magistrate, Fatehpur, but it remained pending.
The petitioner later made an application in February 2025 seeking a decision on the proposal wherein he pointed out that he had served more than half of his sentence.
The jail report recorded that he had undergone 4 years, 6 months and 6 days without remission and 5 years and 4 months with remission, against the total 7-year sentence. His conduct was recorded as satisfactory.
However, in June 2025, a decision was communicated refusing his premature release on the ground that he had served only 2 years and 6 days without remission and 2 years, 1 month and 27 days with remission.
The court in its judgment noted that under sub-Rule (iii) of Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners’ Release on Probation Rules, 1938, a convict in the applicable category becomes eligible for premature release after serving one-third of the sentence without remission.
“Even though power under Article 161 is a constitutional power, as distinguished from the statutory power of the state government under section 432 of criminal procedure code (CrPC), the decision cannot be arbitrary or borne on an error apparent, as important as the period of incarceration suffered by the convict,” the court said.
The court, however, noted that if the correct period of detention had been communicated to the respondents, the conclusion might have been different. Consequently, the high court allowed the writ petition and quashed the June 26, 2025 order refusing premature release to the petitioner.
The matter was remitted to the government for a fresh decision on the petitioner’s plea for premature release to be taken within a month from receipt of the high court’s order dated August 10.
