Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Life Convict's Premature Release; Says Trial Court's Opinion U/S 432 CrPC Must Be Reasoned

The Calcutta High Court has held that while the State Government must obtain the opinion of the presiding judge of the convicting or confirming court before deciding a life convict's application for remission or premature release under Section 432(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such opinion must be reasoned, informed and based on relevant factors, and cannot be mechanically accepted as conclusive. Setting aside the West Bengal Government's rejection of a life convict's premature release solely on the basis of an adverse judicial opinion, the Court directed the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Kolkata, to furnish a fresh, legally compliant opinion and asked the State to reconsider the case thereafter.Justice Om Narayan Rai was dealing with a writ petition filed by Md. Amjad, who has been in custody since 2003 after being convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2005. His conviction was affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court. After undergoing more than 19 years of actual imprisonment, his case was placed before the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB), which recommended his premature release. However, the Principal Secretary, Judicial Department, rejected remission after receiving a negative opinion from the Chief Judge of the City Sessions Court, who relied largely on the brutality of the offence and observed that the convict “deserves no mercy.”Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the order was unreasoned, that the authority had mechanically relied on the judicial opinion, and that the opinion itself did not satisfy the requirements of Section 432(2) CrPC. The State contended that the opinion of the presiding judge was mandatory and that, since the original sessions bench no longer existed, the Chief Judge was competent to render the opinion.The Court first upheld the competence of the Chief Judge to provide the opinion, observing that where the original convicting bench has ceased to exist, the Sessions Judge or Chief Judge can step in as successor-in-office so that the statutory safeguard under Section 432(2) does not become unworkable. It held that the provision cannot be interpreted so strictly as to defeat its purpose.However, examining the contents of the opinion, the Court found it legally deficient. Referring to Supreme Court precedents including Laxman Naskar, Ram Chander, and Bilkis Yakub Rasool, the Court noted that the presiding judge must consider factors such as the possibility of reformation, likelihood of recurrence of crime, conduct in prison, socio-economic background, and whether continued incarceration serves any useful purpose. Instead, the Chief Judge's note focused almost entirely on the gravity of the original offence and lacked a calibrated assessment of post-conviction conduct or reformation. The Court said the opinion “exhibits a wholly uncalibrated approach” and fails to meet statutory requirements.The High Court also faulted the State Government for treating the judicial opinion as binding. Relying on Supreme Court rulings, it clarified that while the opinion is an important and mandatory input, it is only advisory and cannot be followed mechanically. The executive must independently assess all relevant materials. Accepting the adverse opinion without such scrutiny, the Court held, rendered the State's decision unsustainable.At the same time, the Court declined the petitioner's request for direct premature release. It observed that constitutional courts can order release in exceptional cases, but only when sufficient materials are available to evaluate reformation and eligibility. In the present case, apart from a favourable jail conduct certificate and the SSRB's bare recommendation, there was insufficient record to justify bypassing the statutory process.Accordingly, the Court set aside the rejection order and directed the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Kolkata, to furnish a fresh opinion within one month after considering the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court. The State Government was then directed to take a fresh decision within a further month, making it clear that the opinion should be treated as “valuable (maybe weighty) advice” and not mechanically followed.Case: Md. Amjad @ Md. Amzad @ Amjed v. State of West Bengal & Ors., Case No: WPA 2738 of 2025Click here to read order

Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Life Convict's Premature Release; Says Trial Court's Opinion U/S 432 CrPC Must Be Reasoned

Srinjoy Das

Tags