*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 5th November, 2014

%
+

W.P.(Crl.) No.2080/2014
M.K. BALAKRISHNAN
Through:

.. Petitioner
Petitioner in person.
Versus

STATE OF DELHI & ORS.

.. Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and relying on a newspaper report of the

Supreme Court vide order dated 5th September, 2014 having directed the
Judicial Officers to identify prisoners who have completed half of the
maximum period of imprisonment provided for offences they are charged with
and to pass appropriate orders in jail itself of release of the undertrial prisoners
and further relying on Section 433(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
read with Article 161 of the Constitution of India giving power to the
appropriate Government to commute life sentence, to 14 years, seeks a

W.P.(Crl) No.2080/2014

Page 1 of 3

direction to the respondents i.e. Government of National Capital Territory of

Delhi (GNCTD) and Director General (Prison), Prison Headquarter Tihar, New
Delhi, to release all life convicts languishing in Tihar Jail who have completed
14 years incarceration or to release them on bail.
2.

The petition came up before us first on 15 th October, 2014 when being

prima facie of the opinion of the same being misconceived, we heard the
petitioner appearing in person and reserved judgment.

The petitioner, in

addition to his pleadings, relied on Sikander Mohd. Sahfi Vs. State of NCT of
Delhi 2012 [2] JCC 1006 and on Order dated 19th July, 2004 of the Home
(General) Department of the GNCTD of constitution of the National Capital
Territory of Delhi Sentence Reviewing Board (SRB) to review the sentence
awarded to prisoners undergoing life sentence.
3.

We are of the view that no such general direction as sought in the

petition can be given. If any of the life convicts considers himself entitled to be
released on bail or otherwise, he / she would be entitled to take appropriate
steps with respect to his / her individual case and his / her such applications
shall be considered in accordance with law by the concerned Court / Body. No
direction for release of all life convicts, without consideration of their
entitlement thereto based on their respective orders of conviction, can be given.
W.P.(Crl) No.2080/2014

Page 2 of 3

4.

The Supreme Court recently in Arjun Jadav Vs. State of West Bengal

2014 (8) SCALE 312 reiterated that life imprisonment is not equal to
imprisonment for 14 years or 20 years and that the life convicts are not entitled
to be released so long as there is no order of remission passed by the
appropriate government in his or her favour. Reference in this regard may also
be made to Swamy Shraddanada @ Murli Manohar Mishra Vs. State of
Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in
Illyasuddin Vs. State of Delhi MANU/DE/0213/2014 both of which reiterated
that a convict undergoing imprisonment for life cannot claim remission as a
right and that the Court cannot direct the appropriate government for granting
remission to a convicted prisoner.
5.

The petition is indeed misconceived and is dismissed with costs of

Rs.1,000/- payable to the Delhi Legal Services Authority within four weeks of
today.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

CHIEF JUSTICE
NOVEMBER 5, 2014
gsr
W.P.(Crl) No.2080/2014

Page 3 of 3