S.C.- Murder convict cannot claim right to be released after 14 years if the State rules provide to the contrary.


On 22nd April, The Supreme Court of India passed another verdict in the case of State of Rajasthan v/s Mukesh Sharma.

Mukesh Sharma and many other convicts filed individual writ petitions in the High Court regarding the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2) (i) of the Rajasthan prison. The writ petitions were filed in different sessions trials arising from separate unconnected incidents.

The convicts filed writ petitions as they have served more than 14 years in prison still their cases were not presented before State Advisory Authority for reducing their sentence.

In the judgment of the High Court , it held that the rules not having being placed before the legislature of the state did not required any statutory force.

Also the rules could not have been framed contrary to the Section 433A of the code of criminal procedure.

State challenged the order before The Honorable Supreme Court and the court observed that there is no need to lay the rules before legislature prior to the announcement. Since the use of words ‘as soon as’ has no consequence for not laying makes the provision directory and not mandatory.

The Supreme Court held that nothing prevents the state from imposing restrictions in the manner done by Rule 8(2) (i) to consider for remisson.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here