2019 (4) TMI 2137 - SC - Indian Laws

Constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules 2006 - Conviction under Section 302 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code - petitioners contended that they had served more than 14 years in custody but their cases were not placed by the Jail Authorities before the State Advisory Boards for shortening of their sentences and premature release - HELD THAT - The plain language of Section 59(2) makes it manifest that there is no requirement for laying of the Rules before the Legislature prior to promulgation. No time limit for laying has been provided. As rightly urged the use of words as soon as coupled with the absence of any consequence for not laying makes the provision directory and not mandatory. Part 3 of the Rajasthan Prison Rules 1951 under the heading Remission System in Rule 1(e) provides that the sentence for imprisonment for life or transportation of life shall be deemed to mean imprisonment for 20 years - Rule 2(e) of the Rules 2006 defines shortening of sentence to mean the reduction of that period of sentence of a prisoner which he has to serve in the prison upon a judicially pronounced sentence as a matter of grace on the part of the State and as a recognition of his good behaviour in the prison. Manifestly remission not being a matter of right much less upon completion of 14 years of custody but subject to rules framed in that regard including complete denial of the same in specified circumstances as a matter of State policy nothing prevents the State from imposing restrictions in the manner done by Rule 8(2)(i) to consider claims for remission. It is therefore held that the High Court erred in striking down Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rules 2006 on both counts. The Rule is held to be valid and consistent with the law. The impugned orders of the High Court are set aside - appeals are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006
- Interpretation of statutory provisions under Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894
- Consideration of remission policy in light of Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Examination of the remission system under the Rajasthan Prison Rules, 1951 and Rules 2006
- Analysis of the legal framework for shortening of sentences and premature release

Issue 1: Challenge to Rule 8(2)(i) Validity
- Respondents convicted under Section 302 challenged Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rules 2006, contending it was contrary to Section 433-A Cr.P.C.
- High Court held that Rules lacked statutory force due to non-laying before the Legislature, citing Maru Ram vs. Union of India.
- Appellants argued that the Rules did not require pre-legislative laying and were subsequently laid before the Legislature, relying on M/s. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. vs. State of Haryana.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Statutory Provisions
- Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894 empowers State Governments to make rules, including classification of prison offenses and shortening of sentences.
- The absence of a specific time limit for laying rules before the Legislature renders the provision directory, not mandatory, as illustrated in the case of M/s. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd.
- Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rules 2006 was challenged for requiring a minimum of four years remission after 14 years in custody, which was upheld as valid.

Issue 3: Remission Policy and Section 433-A Compliance
- Section 433-A Cr.P.C. mandates a minimum 14-year imprisonment for convicts sentenced to life imprisonment.
- The State's remission policy, challenged as ultra vires Article 14, was upheld as a matter of State policy, not a fundamental right.
- The State could impose restrictions on premature release, as seen in Union of India vs. V. Sriharan.

Issue 4: Remission System Framework
- Part 3 of the Rajasthan Prison Rules, 1951 deems life imprisonment as 20 years.
- Rule 2(e) of the Rules 2006 defines shortening of sentence as a reduction based on good behavior.
- The legal framework, including Section 432 and 433 of Cr.P.C., sets the minimum imprisonment period before considering remission.

Issue 5: Legal Analysis and Conclusion
- The Court held that Rule 8(2)(i) was valid and consistent with the law, rejecting the High Court's decision.
- Remission is not a right but a matter of State policy, allowing the State to impose restrictions on premature release.
- The judgment allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's orders and upholding the validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rules 2006.