Calcutta High Court Orders Reconsideration of Life Convict's Premature Release After 32 Years
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has directed the judicial department to reconsider the premature release request of a 51-year-old life convict, Babulal Jadab alias Babulal Yadav, who has spent nearly 32 years in incarceration. The bench, comprising Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray, emphasized that jails are correctional homes with high hopes for reforming inmates and reintegrating them into society.
Court Criticizes Age-Based Reasoning for Rejection
The judicial department had previously rejected Yadav's plea, citing concerns that at 51 years old, he might commit further offences if released prematurely. The court strongly rebuked this logic, stating it is not sound at all and more speculative than logical. The bench noted that incarcerating someone for 32 years cannot equate them to a free individual of the same age, highlighting the failure to consider health reports or the petitioner's potential reformation.
Key Findings and Observations
The court outlined several critical points in its decision:
- After 32 years of serving a sentence, refusing premature release suggests the state has failed in its reformative obligations.
- The trial court had opined in favor of Yadav's premature release, and there were no adverse reports from the correctional home.
- Yadav's brother, a co-convict with a similar life sentence, secured premature release in 2012, indicating discrimination.
- The judicial department's decision lacked proper perspective, as it did not scrutinize health reports or consider the petitioner's long incarceration.
This ruling underscores the importance of compassionate and evidence-based assessments in such cases, rather than relying on age-based assumptions.
Background and Legal Proceedings
Babulal Yadav was convicted for murder on April 27, 1995, along with his brother, and sentenced to life imprisonment, with the conviction affirmed in 2007. In 2022, the state sentence review board recommended his premature release, but the judicial department rejected it, citing concerns about his age and potential for future crimes. Yadav challenged this in the high court, leading to the current appeal.
Advocates for Yadav argued that the rejection was arbitrary and ignored key factors, such as the lack of adverse reports and the brother's release. State advocates defended the decision based on the offence's gravity and age-related risks.
Court's Decision and Directions
The high court quashed the July 2024 memo rejecting Yadav's plea and set aside the single judge's order. It directed the principal secretary of the judicial department, Government of West Bengal, to reconsider the convict's prayer with compassion and in light of the court's observations within three weeks. The appeal was allowed, with orders to communicate the decision promptly.
This case highlights ongoing debates about jail reforms and the balance between punishment and rehabilitation in India's correctional system.
