NARAYANAN KUTTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have been regularly receiving petitions from prisoners in the various jails in the State sometimes through the grievance boxes maintained in the jails and sometimes direct. The six petitions with which we are dealing here are petitions so received from the prisoners in the various jails in the State. The questions raised in these petitions are same and therefore we have chosen to take up these cases and dispose of them by a common judgment. The questions concern the claim for premature release of the prisoners undergoing sentence of imprisonment in the jails in Kerala State on the strength of advice of the Advisory Board constituted by the State under the Kerala Prison Rules. If the Advisory Board so constituted in the State advises the State Government to release prisoners prematurely taking due account of the fact that they have undergone substantial terms of punishment and their conduct and other circumstances entitles them to seek premature release the State Government would in the normal course accept their recommendation and release them prematurely. Whether that benefit would be available to prisoners convicted by courts outside the State but transferred to this State is the question that has been raised in these petitions. O. P. No. 4188/82 is a petition by one Kesavan, a prisoner who was convicted by a court in Maharashtra State and transferred to a prison in the Kerala State. O. P. No. 5559 of 1982 is by one Poulose, father of one V. P. Johny who has moved for and on behalf of V. P. Johny to release him prematurely on the strength of the Advisory Board's recommendation. Such recommendation has been sent to the Government of Goa, the prisoner having been convicted and sentenced by the Court in the Goan territory. O. P. No. 45/83 relates to the same plea that being a subsequent petition received by us from the prisoner V. P. Johny himself. O. P. Nos. 940/82 and 8953/82 are both by the same prisoner, Narayanankutty evidently the latter being a reminder of the former and the concerns the premature release of the prisoner Narayanankutty who was court martialled, sentenced and later transferred to a prison in Kerala State. O. P. No. 2476 of 1982 is by one Nandanan who was convicted and sentenced in a court in Tamil Nadu State and later transferred to this State. He similarly seeks the benefit of release based on the rules in the Kerala State.

(2.) When these matters came up earlier we had issued notices to the Maharashtra Government, Government of Goa, Government of Tamil Nadu and the Ministry of Defence in the Government of India so that they may appear and state their cases in answer to these petitions. We had response from the Central Government, Ministry of Defence, who instructed the Advocate General. We also heard the Government of Goa and government of Maharashtra through the Advocate General who was instructed by the respective Governments. The Maharashtra Government has filed a counter affidavit and the Goan Government has filed a statement explaining their respective stands. We have not yet had any response from the Government of Tamil Nadu though the learned Advocate General submitted before us that they have been apprised of the situation. The learned Advocate General contacted the Tamil Nadu Government and he is instructed by that Government that their stand is the same as that of Maharashtra and Goan Governments.

(3.) We must place on record our thanks to the learned Advocate General who has explained the stand of the Governments in these cases. We should also place on record our thanks to Shri P. Balagangadhara Menon, who, as amicus curiae in these cases argued the case and also Shri P. V. Ayyappan who appeared in O. P. No. 61/83 which we have chosen to take up for disposal separately. The consequence is that in this case we had the benefit of a thorough discussion as to points of law.