THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS Vs. YESU ALIAS VELAIYAN & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Human dignity, emphasised in the preamble, compassion, implicit in the prescription of fair procedure in Article 21, and the irrationality of arbitrary incarceratory brutality violative of Article 14 invest the demand for a reformatory component in jail regimen with the status of a constitutional requirement." This is what Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, speaking for the majority in Maru Ram Vs. Union of India, 1981 1 SCC 107, put it very aptly about the objective of sentencing.

(2.) In the jail context, "Parole" is a common language often spoken to in the jails and off the jails by the inmates and their kith and kin. What do we really mean by the term "parole" in the legal sense of it and whether the same amounts to suspension of sentence is the doubt which is the basis for the Division Bench for referring the following question to this Full Bench to answer:

(3.) The respondent in W.A.(MD).No.206 of 2010 is a life convict undergoing sentence in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai. According to him, he had spent around 480 days on parole. But the appellants herein did not count the period spent on parole as the period of sentence spent by him. Therefore, he filed W.P.(MD).No.4231 of 2009 before the Madurai Bench of this Court for a Mandamus to direct the appellants herein to count the parole period as part of the period of sentence spent by him. A learned Single Judge of this Court, while sitting in Madurai Bench by an order dated 07.10.2009, allowed the said writ petition and issued Mandamus as prayed for. As against the same, the State filed the present appeal in W.A.(MD).No.206 of 2010.